Oral Answers to Questions

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

The Secretary of State was asked—

Animal Quarantine

Elfyn Llwyd: What representations he has received on the problems caused to international rescue dog teams by the operation of the animal quarantine rules.

Gareth Thomas: On 21 January, my right hon. Friend met representatives of the British search and rescue teams that were deployed in response to the devastating earthquake in Iran. Those met included a team who use dogs in their relief effort. They reported a concern that the necessity to put the dogs into quarantine on return to the United Kingdom had an impact on the immediate availability of trained dogs for future search and rescue responses. As a consequence, some dogs are kennelled overseas rather than returned to the UK.

Elfyn Llwyd: While I fully accept the need for strict quarantine laws, I do not follow the logic of the argument, which apparently is that when dogs are used outside the European Union there is a risk of rabies and so on. Rabies is prevalent in France, but there is free movement across the channel of hundreds of dogs each day, so I do not see the logic. The problem with the search and rescue team in north Wales is that there are six highly trained specialist dogs and handlers and, at any given time, two or three dogs may be in quarantine for up to six months. It is a long time out of the life of an intelligent animal, and it is a waste of time.

Gareth Thomas: I place on the record my appreciation of the work of search and rescue teams, such as the one to which the hon. Gentleman referred, in both the Bam earthquake and more recently in Algeria. However, it is worth remembering that in both Iran and Algeria there is a high prevalence of rabies. Our strict quarantine laws have served the UK well over the past 30 years. Under the quarantine regulations dogs can be taken out of quarantine for deployment overseas, even though they have to come back into quarantine on their return to the UK. My hon. Friend the Minister with responsibility for animal health has recently informed search and rescue organisations that they will be permitted to set up their own quarantine facilities, where training of the dogs can continue in quarantine. I hope that that is helpful and encouraging to the team about which the hon. Gentleman spoke.

Betty Williams: The search and rescue team to which the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) referred is based in my constituency. I welcome my hon. Friend's answer to the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question. Will my hon. Friend undertake to consider, with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the Home Office Minister responsible, reopening discussions on this very important topic?

Gareth Thomas: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her question. My hon. Friend the Minister with responsibility for animal health has only recently informed the search and rescue organisations that they will be permitted to set up their own quarantine facilities, where training can continue. We need time to see how that change is received and settles down before we consider further discussions, but I shall certainly bear my hon. Friend's point in mind.

Michael Fabricant: Is it not the case that, as the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) said, the main concern is rabies, and is it not also the case that anti-rabies vaccinations for dogs exist in the United States and elsewhere? To what extent has the Minister investigated the use of such vaccinations in order to enable rescue dogs to travel freely across different countries?

Gareth Thomas: There have been extensive discussions across Government, with the lead being taken by the responsible DEFRA Minister. We have found a way forward that will help search and rescue organisations, while maintaining the strict rabies policy that has served us so well over the years. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will allow the new proposal by that Minister to settle down before he considers continuing to press for further relaxation in this area.

Belize

Chris Ruane: What aid his Department has given to Belize in the past 10 years.

Gareth Thomas: The Department has provided more than £37 million to Belize in the past 10 years, supporting, for example, education programmes, public sector reform work and the police.
	We have also provided debt relief of almost £3 million under the Commonwealth debt initiative, supporting conflict prevention work through the global conflict prevention pool in relation to the Belize-Guatemala border dispute, and have contributed further to Belize through our funding of multilateral organisations such as the United Nations and the European Commission.

Chris Ruane: I thank my hon. Friend for that positive response. He will be aware that we are currently in Fairtrade fortnight. What actions can he and his Department take to ensure that we can link the burgeoning fair trade movement in this country to primary producers in Belize?

Gareth Thomas: My hon. Friend will be pleased to know that we have provided £225,000 to support cocoa farmers from the Toledo region of Belize, through the Toledo Cocoa Growers Association, to expand the production of their cocoa products and increase their exports overseas. Toledo being one of the poorest areas of Belize, I hope that my hon. Friend will agree that that is step in the right direction for the very poorest people in Belize.
	More generally, I would like to place on the record my appreciation, and I am sure the appreciation of the whole House, of the work of the Fairtrade Foundation, and celebrate collectively the fact that the turnover of Fairtrade products in the UK is now about £100 million.

Robert Walter: Four years ago, the Government blocked more than £12.5 million of debt relief to Belize. I am pleased to hear from the Minister that some £3 million has been paid to date, but will he tell us when, under the Commonwealth debt initiative, Belize will receive the rest of the relief that it is due?

Gareth Thomas: The hon. Gentleman may like to know that the most recent tranche of debt relief that I signed off in January this year—for next year and a further two years—was as a result of the reform programme taking place in Belize. I have had good discussions with Prime Minister Musa about the reform programme and I hope that he is satisfied with the progress made on debt relief write-off.

George Foulkes: After my questions on Monday and Tuesday, I am tempted to aim for a hat trick of toadying, self-serving sycophancy by saying what a wonderful job the Minister is doing! No doubt, however, I would be accused by the sketchwriters of wanting to become Governor of Bermuda—[Interruption.] What a good idea. Instead, I ask the Minister if he will talk to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office about speeding up resolution of the border dispute between Belize and Guatemala, which is limiting the sort of development that is vital for the people of Belize.

Gareth Thomas: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his searching and robust questioning of the work of my Department. He will know that the new President of Guatemala has recently been confirmed in office, and that we are putting in £1.5 million of global conflict prevention money to help with the resolution of the Belize-Guatemala border dispute. We continue to work closely with the Foreign Office to help promote such resolution, but it is a matter that the two countries ultimately will have to resolve themselves. We will continue to support them in that process.

Tony Baldry: It was from Belize 10 years ago that the first fair trade product, Maya Gold chocolate, came into the UK. Although it is good news that shoppers spend some £2 million on Fairtrade products each week, there is still some way to go. For example, only about 4 or 5 per cent. of bananas purchased are Fairtrade ones. Is not Fairtrade fortnight a good opportunity to make it clear that there is a modest way for every consumer to help farmers in developing countries by buying Fairtrade products such as cocoa, chocolate and bananas, whenever possible?

Gareth Thomas: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that Fairtrade fortnight provides an excellent opportunity for us, as individual consumers, to do our individual bit to help promote fairer trade. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would not be upset by my taking this opportunity to confirm that, by the end of 2003, shoppers were spending more than £2 million per week at the checkout on products with the Fairtrade mark. Furthermore, on Monday the Co-op, which has always been the leading supplier of Fairtrade products, pledged to double the size of its own brand range of such products by the end of this year. If other suppliers follow the Co-op's lead, we can expect the fair trade market to continue to grow, which is good news.

Millennium Development Goals

Chris McCafferty: Whether reproductive health supplies security is a key requirement for the attainment of the millennium development goals.

Hilary Benn: The millennium development goals will not be achieved without further progress on reproductive health and rights. An essential part of that is ensuring that women and men, including young people, have access both to condoms, contraceptives, medicines and other products, and to the services, information and education that they need to protect their reproductive and sexual health. DFID's bilateral programmes focus on strengthening the capacity of health systems to deliver those services and supplies effectively, and we also support organisations such as the United Nations Population Fund and the global fund.

Chris McCafferty: I thank my right hon. Friend for his reply, but can he tell the House what role the Government intend to play in bringing to the attention of the international community the very serious issue of reproductive health supplies security; and what are they going to do to encourage recipient countries to prioritise the same issue?

Hilary Benn: First, I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for her work on issues of reproductive health, in which she has taken a great interest for a very long time. I share her concern about the availability of reproductive health commodities. One thing that we are doing is to take every opportunity within the international community to draw attention to the problem. Secondly, we are providing finance and support to the United Nations Population Fund, which works hard in that field. Thirdly, and most importantly, we are ourselves funding a large number of supply programmes, including many social marketing programmes in many of the countries in which we work, to provide condoms and other reproductive health supplies.

Jenny Tonge: The Secretary of State will know that wherever he goes in the third world villages always seem to have access to Coca Cola and other such products. What is he doing to ensure that reproductive health supplies, especially condoms, are as available as Coca Cola?

Hilary Benn: I am not sure that the Department for International Development can hope to match Coca Cola—

John Bercow: Be bold.

Hilary Benn: May I give a practical example in answer to the hon. Lady's question? When I was in Pakistan just after Christmas, I met a group of lady health workers in Peshawar, where we are helping to fund a programme. Part of our increased aid programme in Pakistan is to allow more lady health workers to be employed in poor communities in that country. They work with families and mums on family planning, ensuring that supplies are available, and on child health and maternal mortality. That is a practical contribution and is one of the many examples, of which I am sure the hon. Lady is aware, of ways in which we are trying to address the question she raised.

Tony Worthington: I was delighted to hear the Secretary of State say that many of the millennium development goals cannot be achieved without good reproductive health services, but the fact is that in Africa, supply of those services falls behind demand year by year. What are the international reasons for that and what can be done to give African women the same right to choose the size of their families as we have?

Hilary Benn: Partly, we need to ensure that in the development programmes that we undertake we give particular priority to precisely the point raised by my hon. Friend—enabling women to have more control over what happens to them. That is one of the most effective ways to ensure that right. The second thing we can do is to increase the size of our international development budget, including the budget for Africa, and by 2005–06 we shall be spending a billion pounds a year bilaterally. That is the expression of a practical commitment to support all that work.

Patrick Cormack: What are the Government doing to encourage emulation of the example set by the Ugandan Government, who seek to teach young people that promiscuity is not necessary to adult life?

Hilary Benn: I take this opportunity to pay tribute to the leadership that the Government of Uganda and President Museveni have provided, especially on HIV/AIDS. In that country, we can see the benefit of strong political leadership in telling people, "This is the virus, this is how you catch it" and, crucially, "These are the steps that you can take in order to prevent yourself from being infected". We have seen the prevalence rate in Uganda fall—as it has done in Senegal, too. That is one of the most important things that Governments can do to enable their peoples to protect themselves.

Iraq

David Stewart: If he will make a statement on aid to Iraq.

Hilary Benn: May I first express the House's deepest sympathy to the victims of the appalling bomb attacks that took place in Karbala and Baghdad yesterday? Those responsible clearly chose the Ashura festival as their target and cynically intended to cause the deaths of as many people as possible in an effort to disrupt Iraq's progress towards reconstruction and democracy. That cannot be allowed to succeed.
	In my written statement of 23 February, I announced the publication of DFID's country assistance plan for Iraq. It sets out how the Government will help the reconstruction of Iraq over the next two years by supporting rapid, sustainable and equitable economic growth; effective and accountable governance; and social and political cohesion and stability. At the same time, I announced an initial UK contribution of £65 million to the United Nations and World Bank's international reconstruction fund facility for Iraq.

David Stewart: Does my right hon. Friend share my view that debt relief is a vital ingredient in the rebuilding of the Iraqi economy? Iraq owes about $200 billion in debt and reparations payments, while ordinary Iraqis exist on about $2 per day. Of course, aid is a vital ingredient, but does my right hon. Friend share my view that we must break the millstone of that crippling Iraqi debt?

Hilary Benn: I do indeed agree with my hon. Friend on this subject. A lot of work is going on to try to achieve that. It will need to be dealt with through the Paris Club. I think that most major creditors now recognise the need for substantial debt reduction and restructuring.

Julian Brazier: May I on behalf of the official Opposition express total support for the Minister's comments on the ghastly events of the last 24 hours and make it clear that, as the House knows, the official Opposition support the Government in their determination to see this through? Nevertheless, does not the Secretary of State now regret saying,
	"never mind the planning when we can see the product of the improvement that results from the work that has been done".—[Official Report, 12 November 2003; Vol. 413, c. 292.]?
	Does he also regret saying that
	"the security situation is improving throughout the country as a whole. The majority of insurgency attacks remain largely confined to a limited area to the north and north-west of Baghdad"—[Official Report, 19 January 2004; Vol. 416, c. 944W.]?
	Is not the truth that the Iraqis and our armed forces are suffering from the lack of post-conflict planning?

Hilary Benn: I do not accept that and I do not regret a word that I uttered on either of those two occasions, because it is self-evidently the case that reconstruction in Iraq is progressing and is succeeding, despite attacks such as the awful one yesterday. Of course our forces, the Iraqi forces, the police officers and the emerging Iraqi army are particularly in the firing line because the people who are planting these bombs do not want the reconstruction to succeed; they do not want the Iraqi people to have the chance of a better life.
	However, it is important that the House recognise that those two things are happening in parallel, and that the process of reconstruction is taking place. Schools and hospitals are being rebuilt. The economy is growing. The increasing freedom of expression is evidenced by the growth of newspapers. Only last weekend the governing council attained the great achievement of agreeing a transitional law, which shows what can be done when the Iraqi people work together to carve out a better future for their own country.

Tam Dalyell: In his answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Inverness, East, Nairn and Lochaber (Mr. Stewart), the Secretary of State said that the intent of those responsible for the attacks could not be allowed to succeed. Will he take it from one who was shown round his mosque by the imam in Karbala that it is not a simple question of Sunni versus Shi'a? That is over-simplistic, and such things should not be said by people in the west who should know better. But how are we going to stop it succeeding?

Hilary Benn: I agree with my hon. Friend that this is not a simple matter, and nobody said that the reconstruction of Iraq after the 30 years of trauma and suffering that its people had experienced was going to be easy. This is a process, which we have to be determined to see through. What is necessary to maximise the chances of its success? First, it is necessary for the ordinary Iraqis to see that life is getting better as a result of the reconstruction work; that work is happening and people can see that.
	Secondly, and most importantly, there must be a clear political process, which shows the Iraqi people that this is about enabling them to take their own decisions about their own future—something that has been denied them for the last 30 years. With the appointment of the governing council, the appointment of the Ministers, the agreement on the transfer of authority to take place on 1 July this year and, most recently, the agreement on the transitional administrative law, the process demonstrates that the Iraqi people, when they work together, are perfectly capable of charting that path towards a better future. We need to get on with it, because that is the best way in the end for us to undermine those people who are trying to disrupt that process.

Tom Brake: Yesterday's cold-blooded terrorist outrage makes it even more important that funding for aid in Iraq is guaranteed. Can the Secretary of State confirm what financial arrangements are in place to ensure that the work that, for instance, the Salvation Army is doing can continue beyond the 30 June cut-off point? Does he expect aid to Iraq to increase as a result of yesterday's incident, and if so, where would he expect that additional funding to come from?

Hilary Benn: On the first point, I do not anticipate that there will be any difficulty in the continuation of the programme that the hon. Gentleman mentioned after 1 July. If there is a specific problem that he wishes to draw to my attention, I readily undertake to look into it. On the second issue, we have already made clear the extent of our financial commitment up to March 2006. Yesterday's events demonstrate the importance of the whole international community coming together to provide the support now, to further support the reconstruction and to back the political process, because that is the best way in the end of ensuring that Iraq has the better future that it desperately deserves after the nightmare that the people of that country have experienced in the past 30 years.

Africa

Nigel Evans: What discussions he has had on ensuring that aid is targeted towards the poorest areas of Africa.

Hilary Benn: I have regular discussions with African Governments, officials and a wide range of organisations and individuals on where best to target aid. Decisions on where to allocate resources are informed by an analysis of poverty levels, a commitment to poverty reduction and institutional capacity. United Kingdom bilateral assistance to Africa will rise to £1 billion a year by 2005–06.

Nigel Evans: Prince Harry has recognised that there is a real role for volunteers who want to give up some of their time to go to some of the poorest parts of Africa. It has been announced that he is spending some of his gap year in Lesotho, helping the victims of AIDS. As the Secretary of State will know, there is a skills shortage. A lot of young people are dying of AIDS, and they are the very people who could help out in the epidemic there. I welcome the amount of aid that the British Government are giving to help to combat the epidemic that is ravaging Africa, but can he suggest any practical ways in which we can assist with the effective spending of that money by ensuring that the skills needed to help those who are suffering from AIDS are gained?

Hilary Benn: I welcome all the efforts that many voluntary organisations are making to try to contribute to the fight against HIV/AIDS, but the hon. Gentleman raises a fundamental question about capacity. In Malawi, for example, teachers are dying of HIV/AIDS faster than they can be trained, creating a fundamental problem that impacts on the achievement of the millennium development goal of getting kids into primary schools. I recognise that we need, as an international community working with developing country Governments, to think more about how we can bolster and support that capacity, perhaps in ways that we have not been using recently. Work that I have commissioned on this very issue is already under way in the Department. The hon. Gentleman puts his finger on a very big concern, to which we will have to respond.

Tony McWalter: My right hon. Friend will know that the Science and Technology Committee is conducting an inquiry into how we can translate the wealth and financial resources that he is making available into scientific and engineering expertise, so that those countries can trade and invest their way out of current poverty levels. Will he welcome that inquiry and assure the House that he will give every assistance in promoting it to reach a satisfactory conclusion in those investigations?

Hilary Benn: I indeed welcome the inquiry, and we have already given evidence. We are seeking to apply our scientific research in a way that makes the biggest difference in helping the people of Africa to have a better future, not least in encouraging ideas and proposals—for example, new ways to plant and care for crops. We have to ensure that the ideas that are the product of that research are disseminated as effectively as possible, so that farmers on the ground know that they can do things differently to increase, for example, their agricultural productivity.

John Bercow: The motivation behind the establishment of the UN Economic Commission for Africa is to be applauded, and I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on his appointment to it. Does the commission intend to consider the reform of the heavily indebted poor countries initiative? Can he confirm whether it will also consider how to address the $300 million funding gap in relief for southern Africa? Will he tell the House what is the yardstick for measuring the commission's success in 12 months' time?

Hilary Benn: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for welcoming the Commission for Africa, although I have to say that the fact that the Opposition have decided that they would not protect spending on international development would not help in achieving that objective. The Commission for Africa will consider all the things that he mentions and others, as we search for what more we can do to help Africa—but the worst thing that we could do is reduce the aid that we are giving.

John Bercow: We have decided no such thing, and the right hon. Gentleman ought to be explicitly clear on that point. Given that there is an AIDS levy in Zimbabwe, but that on my recent visit there I encountered people who are getting no benefit whatsoever from the resources raised by domestic taxpayers, will the commission consider the crisis of governance that is killing people, not only in judicial killings but by neglecting the terminally ill?

Hilary Benn: On the first point, I simply say that the hon. Gentleman ought to talk to his colleagues about what others have decided for his portfolio. On the second issue, yes, the commission will need to consider good governance because everyone recognises that good governance is absolutely fundamental to the future of Africa.

PRIME MINISTER

The Prime Minister was asked—

Engagements

Michael Weir: If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 3 March.

Tony Blair: Before stating my engagements for the day, may I say that I am sure that the whole House will join me in sending our deepest sympathy to the people of Iraq, where 150 or more innocent men, women and children were killed yesterday by terrorism, and to Pakistan where, in a similar attack, more than 40 innocent people died? Both were calculated acts of evil. Both were attacks designed to foment religious strife. The attack in Iraq was plainly designed to stop the progress that Iraq is making toward a stable democratic state under the sovereignty of the Iraqi people, and it has been condemned by Muslim leaders—Sunni and Shi'a alike. Our pledge to the people of Iraq and Pakistan is to work with them to ensure that this evil barbarism is eliminated from all parts of our world.
	This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I have further such meetings later today.

Michael Weir: Does the Prime Minister agree with Fred Eckhard, the official spokesman for Kofi Annan, that anyone bugging the Secretary-General of the United Nations is in clear breach of the 1946 UN convention and, indeed, has committed an illegal act?

Tony Blair: I have nothing to add to what I said last Thursday on that except to say, yet again, that our security services of course abide by all our legal obligations.

Claire Curtis-Thomas: Now that we have successfully negotiated a peaceful outcome for the people of Iraq, what are we going to do in terms of securing a better solution for those in poverty throughout the world and improving settlements and progress on issues of third world debt?

Tony Blair: There has of course been a very important agreement in Iraq, which I hope will be ratified later this week, on a new constitution and a way forward. It is worth pointing out, as my hon. Friend implies, that that will allow people of all religious persuasions in Iraq freedom of worship and the ability to do what they wish to do in accordance with proper human rights. It is a remarkable political achievement by the people in Iraq, which is why whatever the terrorists may try to do, we have to carry on working to establish a peaceful, democratic, stable and prosperous Iraq for the future.

Michael Howard: May I first join the Prime Minister in expressing the sympathy of those of us on these Benches to the families of those who lost their lives and those who were injured in yesterday's horrific attacks in Iraq and Pakistan? Can the Prime Minister confirm that police in Basra, backed by British troops, captured four suspected bombers who might have caused even more carnage? I also join him in congratulating the Iraqi National Congress on the progress made in agreeing the constitution. Does the Prime Minister agree that we have a continuing duty to the people of Iraq to do everything that we can to help them to build a stable and peaceful country?

Tony Blair: In relation to people who may have been arrested by British troops, I cannot give any further information at this stage, but I will tell the House as soon as I am able to do so. It is worth pointing out that British troops and, indeed, those working with them down in the south of Iraq have done a quite magnificent job on behalf of this country and the people of Iraq. Of course I agree with the sentiments in the other part of what the right hon. and learned Gentleman said.
	It is worth pointing something out to people who are in any doubt about the importance of what is going on in Iraq today and the struggle there of Iraqi people who are trying to make their country better. Although they are helped by the Americans, the British and 30 other countries, the Iraqi people are taking responsibility for their own affairs and trying to strive forward. These brutal, evil terrorists are prepared to kill any number of people to stop that progress being made. It literally is a fight between the forces of good and the forces of evil, and we should be immensely proud of the part that this country and our troops are playing in that struggle.

Michael Howard: Of course I join unreservedly with the Prime Minister in his tribute to British troops. Does he agree that it is the prospect of a stable and peaceful Iraq that represents the greatest threat to the terrorists of al-Qaeda and their associates, and is not that the reason why Iraq has now become the front line in the war against terror? What implications do yesterday's events have for the plans to hold elections in Iraq? Does he agree with the UN special advisor, Lakhdar Brahimi, who says that organising elections by 30 June in the current security climate would be difficult, and that it is unlikely that the necessary mechanisms can be put in place in time?

Tony Blair: It will be difficult, for the reasons that the UN representative gives. On the other hand, it is important that we keep to the timetable to bring democracy to Iraq as swiftly as possible. I agree with the right hon. and learned Gentleman on the first part of his question—of course it is important. There is a clear reason why terrorists from every extremist group in the middle east are pouring into Iraq to try to do as much damage as they can to innocent people there: it is because they know that if Iraq becomes a stable, democratic and prosperous country, a Muslim country where there is tolerance of worship and sovereignty is vested in the Iraqi people, that will not only be a huge signal of hope across the middle east, but it will deal a tremendous blow to the propaganda of the extremists and fanatics who would say that the purpose of any conflict in Iraq was to seize the oil or subjugate the Iraqi people. That is why they are doing it—they know what is at stake. I just hope that we do as well.

Gerald Kaufman: Does my right hon. Friend recall that when he and I sat together in the shadow Cabinet during the Gulf crisis and war of 1990–91, we—the Labour party—gave full, unwavering and undeviating support to the policies of the Government of which the leader of the Conservative party was a member? We never wavered at any time—it was a matter of principle to us—nor did we ask for the publication of the legal justification for the war. Is not that a contrast—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Gerald Kaufman: Is not that a contrast with the wriggling, squirming mess of opportunist hypocrisy we see on the Opposition Benches?

Tony Blair: I only hope that, since we have had an exchange today that was based on consensus, we can continue in that spirit. It is important for our country, our troops and the security of the world that on big issues, in so far as possible, the main parties come to agreement. I hope that we can maintain that position. I honestly believe that that is in the interests of Britain.

Charles Kennedy: Following on from the question put by the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman), will the Prime Minister acknowledge that, now that one former Prime Minister and two former Foreign Secretaries have said that the Attorney-General's legal advice should be published in full, he should not continue to resist doing so?

Tony Blair: No, I am afraid that I do not agree. Actually, I pay rather more attention to what those people did when in government.

Charles Kennedy: Where public trust is concerned, the absence of publication of the Attorney-General's full legal advice will only encourage the atmosphere out there of people not believing what they are being told. Publication must be in the interests of the Prime Minister and of the Government. Is not the real danger of the absence of publication the growing perception that perhaps the Attorney-General's advice was itself sexed up?

Tony Blair: For some people who have been opposed to the war, it really does not matter what happens. Whether there is another inquiry, whatever is published, and whatever is said, they simply cannot get over the fact that there is a legitimate disagreement about whether the judgment to go to war was right or not. It does not require a conspiracy theory to mount that argument; it simply requires an acceptance of the fact that there was a difference between us—between him and me and between those who were in favour of the war and those who were against it. However, I am frankly surprised that the right hon. Gentleman has risen to his feet today and not at least condemned what happened in Iraq yesterday. When we examine what is at stake in Iraq today, whatever we thought about the war—whether we agreed with it or not—surely we can agree that the most important thing now is to rebuild Iraq in the interests of that country and of the wider world.

Colin Challen: Will my right hon. Friend join me in welcoming the publication last week of the report by the International Labour Organisation's World Commission on the Social Dimension of Globalisation, which, among other recommendations, proposes that the ILO should have much stronger powers to carry out its duties? Unlike the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank and other bodies, the ILO does not have the power to enforce sanctions to ensure that labour rights are recognised around the globe. In particular, the right to join a free and fair trade union is denied to millions of Chinese workers. Will my right hon. Friend join me in expressing those sentiments?

Tony Blair: The ILO report is wide ranging. It talks about the millennium development goals in Africa, which we are committed to meeting. Aid given by this country has significantly increased in the past few years, which is important. On labour standards, obviously I strongly support proper minimum labour standards across the world, as does the ILO. Indeed, we introduced the right, which was denied for many years, to join a trade union in this country. At the same time, it is important that minimum labour standards do not become a means of protectionism, and that balance must be struck.

Tom Brake: The Prime Minister says that the UK has some of the toughest arms controls in Europe. If that is the case, can he explain why in 2002 the UK exported arms or weapons components to 12 African countries, many of which are involved in violent regional conflicts? Should the Economic Commission for Africa, which he established last week, investigate that matter; and where do those exports leave his claim that we prevent the sale of small arms to Africa?

Tony Blair: Perhaps I will set out in writing for the hon. Gentleman exactly what was sold to each of the 12 countries. We should not assume that selling arms to a country is necessarily wrong. The defence industry is an important part of British industry, and many thousands of jobs depend on it. It is not necessarily the case that selling arms to countries is wrong, especially if countries use them to defend themselves.

Gordon Marsden: Will the Prime Minister join me in congratulating all those who have campaigned for and are now involved in the construction of the new £45 million specialist cardiac unit at Blackpool Victoria hospital, which I saw my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health officially launch yesterday? Does he agree that Governments must demonstrate not only economic competence and a commitment to the core values of the NHS but actual, real, sustained improvements for patients, such as those that that unit will deliver?

Tony Blair: The unit is part of a series of centres located across the country that will cut waiting lists and waiting times. There is massive additional investment in the health service. Alongside other investments, there are new hospital buildings—I opened one recently—with magnificent, state-of-the-art facilities. They form part of the investment and reform programme in the national health service that is daily improving the lives of people in this country and bringing the national health service back to where it should be—the pride of Britain.

Michael Howard: Following the question from the hon. Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. Marsden) on the national health service, the Prime Minister will be aware that there is a statutory, three-month implementation period for guidance from the National Institute for Clinical Excellence. In the case of photodynamic therapy for those suffering from wet, age-related macular degeneration, the Secretary of State for Health has extended that period to nine months. As a result, the Royal National Institute of the Blind estimates that 2,800 people will go blind unnecessarily. Can the Prime Minister explain why the Secretary of State took that action?

Tony Blair: I am afraid that I am not aware of the particular issue to which the right hon. and learned Gentleman refers, but I will certainly look into it. I am sure that there are good reasons for extending the consultation period—there are often important reasons—in order to make sure that whatever we do is most effective for the patients concerned. However, I am not in a position to respond on the detail of the point today.

Michael Howard: Let me see if I can help the Prime Minister a bit. It is not a consultation period that was extended—[Interruption.] The Secretary of State for Health should restrain himself. It is not a consultation period that was extended but an implementation period. The Secretary of State said in the House last week that the reason for extending that period was a "lack of trained personnel", but the RNIB has said that there are at least 50 centres across the country that could provide that treatment today. Will the Prime Minister now instruct the Secretary of State to deliver that important sight-saving service as a matter of urgency?

Tony Blair: I will look into the points that the right hon. and learned Gentleman is making. I understand from the Secretary of State that NICE agreed to the extension of the period, but I will obviously have to look into that very carefully to make sure that what the right hon. and learned Gentleman said is right. I cannot answer the particular point because I simply do not know the details at the moment, but I can say that it has been part of the Government's investment programme in the health service massively to increase the number of training places throughout the national health service. I would point out to the right hon. and learned Gentleman that on each occasion that we have made that additional investment, he opposed it.

Michael Howard: I am afraid that the Prime Minister is still missing the point. The people who could provide that treatment, according to the RNIB, are there now. The treatment could be provided now—people are going blind because they are not allowed to provide that treatment now. Will the Prime Minister instruct the Secretary of State to make that treatment available now?

Tony Blair: I am not going to give him any such instructions until I have investigated whether the right hon. and learned Gentleman is being entirely accurate with the facts. If he does not mind my saying so, on previous occasions on which he has put such points of detail to me they have turned out to be not exactly as they were when he put them to me. I shall therefore have to look into the matter, but of course we will do whatever we can. It is important, however, that we do so in consultation with NICE. After all, we are the Government who established NICE, and did so to make sure that we can end the postcode lottery in the national health service. It has worked extremely well, and I am quite sure that the Secretary of State took action on proper advice. Following our exchange today, however, I will make sure that I acquaint myself fully with the facts, and will write to the right hon. and learned Gentleman, so that we can see exactly what those facts are.

Robert Marshall-Andrews: rose—

Hon. Members: Ah!

Robert Marshall-Andrews: I plead guilty.
	The Attorney-General has provided three written replies to the effect that he did not rely on any facts in Government dossiers when reaching his opinion that Iraq had failed to disarm. In those circumstances, what factual material was he given by the Government from which he could draw that conclusion?

Tony Blair: The Attorney-General was given whatever material he required to make his decision, but the basis of the decision was that Iraq continued in material breach of UN resolutions. I must tell my hon. and learned Friend that in respect of resolution 1441 there was a whole series of things that Iraq was supposed to do under Saddam Hussein. Before he shakes his head, perhaps he would like to listen to what those were—that is what a lawyer should do, after all. The point, surely, is that the Iraq survey group has already found that there was a failure to disclose proper information to the United Nations inspectors and that there was a series of activities and programmes in breach of UN resolutions, so it is completely obvious that Iraq was in material breach of resolution 1441.

Sandra Gidley: Will the Prime Minister fly me to the moon? Failing that, will he accompany me to Lunar house in Croydon, which has been described as a human cattle shed. Staff and the public are under huge pressure, and my constituents are waiting months, if not years, for their cases to be determined. Is the Prime Minister proud of the service that his Government are providing in that area?

Tony Blair: It is extremely unfair to say that about staff at Lunar house. Actually, an immense amount of work has been done there. For example, 80 per cent. of asylum claims that used to take an average of 18 months to process now take only two months and, as the hon. Lady knows, the number of asylum seekers has been halved. The staff do an excellent job in very difficult circumstances. We try to ensure that we process claims as quickly as possible.
	As for sending the hon. Lady to the moon, I fear that it is too much peopled with Liberal Democrats as it is.

Kevin McNamara: My right hon. Friend will recall that in the course of the Weston Park agreement Judge Corry was asked to look into the killings in Northern Ireland and in the Republic. He has already had his report published in the Republic, but not yet in this country. Furthermore, he has told the families that he has come down in favour of a public inquiry to ascertain how those people were killed and whether there was any collusion with the security forces of the Crown. Can my right hon. Friend give the House an undertaking that after the report has been published, public inquiries will be established, as recommended by Mr. Justice Corry, and that there will be no attempt to subsume or absorb those inquiries into any future truth and reconciliation commission, in order to ensure that those responsible for these hideous crimes can properly be held to account?

Tony Blair: My hon. Friend will know that no decisions have been taken in relation to any truth and reconciliation commission. Obviously, that could not subsume any such inquiries. I stand by the commitments of Weston Park, but there are particular legal reasons that we have to go through and ensure are in order before we are able to publish the Corry report. We will do so as soon as we can.

Jenny Tonge: Will the Prime Minister confirm that a limit of 480,000 air traffic movements a year at Heathrow was accepted by his Government after the terminal 5 inquiry, and that the Government White Paper is now calling for runway alternation so that 560,000 air traffic movements a year can take place? That will make noise pollution unbearable and could cause catastrophe in the skies over Heathrow. If that happens, will the Prime Minister take responsibility or will he blame somebody else?

Tony Blair: I understand the hon. Lady's constituency preoccupation. It is of course important that she represent the views of her constituents, and I am sure that they are opposed to any extension at Heathrow. It is in the nature of such developments that it is very difficult to find people who are in favour of them.
	On the other hand, we have to try to take a strategic view in the interests of the country as a whole, in view of the fact that air travel has increased dramatically and will increase dramatically again over the next few years. A whole series of issues, including environmental issues, must be resolved. That is why we said what we did in the aviation White Paper. The hon. Lady will have to understand—it is difficult to say, but none the less true—that in the end we will have to take a decision based on what we believe to be in the long-term interests of the country; and Heathrow as an airport is of massive strategic importance to the whole of the UK.

Peter Pike: My right hon. Friend will know that the biggest single problem in Burnley is not the British National party and racism, which he has always condemned, but the 4,500 empty houses there. Later this month, the results of the bid for the housing renewal pathfinder project—Elevate—will be announced. While we are waiting for that, a series of houses that are not included in phase 1 are deteriorating rapidly. Can my right hon. Friend assure me and people in east Lancashire that we will get an early decision to enable us to tackle the problem quickly?

Tony Blair: My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister will make an announcement on that shortly. We have set aside a £500 million package for housing market renewal, which is a major issue in east Lancashire and in places such as my hon. Friend's constituency, and the obverse of some of the issues down in the south of the country. That is why we thought it so important to establish the pathfinder renewal fund.

Richard Bacon: Why does the Prime Minister take part in only 5 per cent. of Divisions, according to the Library? I know that he is busy, but does he understand that, while he asks his colleagues to come here to vote for things about which many of them have severe doubts, he can hardly be bothered to vote himself?

Tony Blair: We have rather a large majority, and often I do not come here for Divisions. However, the most important thing when holding a Prime Minister to account is questions at the Dispatch Box. In the past six and a half years, I have answered more questions at the Dispatch Box—[Hon. Members: "Answered?"] Let us say that I have given answers to my satisfaction if not the wholehearted satisfaction of others. I have made more statements—the whole Government have made more statements—and I believe that that is a more effective way in which to hold the Prime Minister to account.

Betty Williams: Following my right hon. Friend's welcome announcement last week of an Economic Commission for Africa, does he agree that many major issues, such as AIDS, poverty, civil war and civil unrest, remain to be faced in Africa? Does he further agree that poverty is the key issue? What steps does he believe the international community should take to increase income levels so that the challenges can be taken on?

Tony Blair: The increase in our bilateral aid to Africa will take it to £1 billion a year in the next couple of years. That is an increase of 50 per cent. in three years. Indeed, we have trebled the amount of money that we were contributing in 1997. It is therefore important to continue with the aid and development budget and not subject it to the cuts with which the Conservative party is apparently intent on proceeding. They would do immense damage to our whole development case.

James Clappison: Does the Prime Minister appreciate how fed up people are with unneeded name changes such as those proposed to the criminal justice system? Is not that one more example of the Government's propensity to waste money and overlook the pride that ordinary people take in their connection with the Crown?

Tony Blair: Something will be said about that later. Surely we can take pride in, for example, a 30 per cent. rise in guilty pleas now that the prosecutors have an active role in charging, a fall in the number of ineffective trials, and conviction rates of 90 per cent. in Crown and magistrates courts. Whatever the service's change of name, it will make no difference to the fact that the Crown mounts the prosecutions. Surely it is far more important to concentrate on the excellent work of many in the Crown Prosecution Service.

Brian Iddon: The latest victim of death by dangerous driving in my constituency was eight-year-old Billy Joe Dean. Of greatest concern to me are the drivers who receive short sentences, which are not unusually reduced on appeal, despite the fact that the drivers have been driving under the influence of alcohol, often without licences or insurance, and have usually been involved in previous incidents. Does my right hon. Friend agree that we have been far too lenient with those drivers in the past?

Tony Blair: I can totally understand and, indeed, share the anger of my hon. Friend and his constituents about such situations. Obviously, I cannot comment on the individual court case. We have given the courts the power to increase the penalty. Under the Criminal Justice Act 2003, the penalty for causing death by dangerous driving has been increased from 10 to 14 years. I hope that the new sentencing guidelines, which we shall discuss later, will allow us to make sentences more consistent and make it clear that those who cause death by dangerous driving, especially when under the influence of drink, take lives wholly unnecessarily and appallingly, with terrible, tragic consequences for individuals and their families.

Nicholas Winterton: Does the Prime Minister accept that one of the responsibilities of Members of Parliament is to represent the interests of those who sent them here? Does he therefore accept that I am deeply concerned about the position of my borough council of Macclesfield, which, despite an increase in resources from central Government to take account of inflation, is in grave difficulty because of additional responsibilities that central Government have placed on local government for which additional resources have not been provided? Is he prepared to meet me or to ask the relevant Minister to meet me to discuss the problems of my council, which is doing its best and is a debt-free borough council? The withdrawal of capital receipts means that it is in grave difficulty.

Tony Blair: I am always happy to meet the hon. Gentleman, but I have to say to him, in relation to councils, that they all—including Macclesfield—have had an above-inflation rise in central Government grant. Of course there will always be difficult decisions for councils, but if we look back over the past few years, we see that most councils in the country have had a double-digit real terms increase in their funding. Yes, it is true that they have also had additional responsibilities, but the funding increase has been massive. I have to point out to the hon. Gentleman that the position of his own Front Benchers is to cut, in real terms, the amount of money going to local authorities, not to increase it as we are doing.

Crown Prosecution Service

Dominic Grieve: (urgent question): To ask the Home Secretary if he will make a statement on his role in relation to the Crown Prosecution Service and on its renaming to delete reference to the Crown.

Harriet Harman: With permission, Mr. Speaker, I shall answer this question.
	As Minister responsible for the Crown Prosecution Service, the Attorney-General has initiated and is leading a substantial programme of development and reform of the CPS. The Home Secretary fully supports that programme, particularly the closer working between the CPS and the police that it involves. Some months ago, the Attorney-General first raised the question of whether, to reflect that programme of change and reform, the name of the Crown Prosecution Service should be changed. Further discussions are under way. The Attorney-General is making a statement on that in another place this afternoon.

Dominic Grieve: I thank the Solicitor-General for that extremely brief statement, but frankly, I am sorry to see her at the Dispatch Box. The question was specifically put to the Home Secretary, because it is what he said yesterday that requires scrutiny by, and an answer to be given to, this House. It was the Home Secretary who made the comment on the Crown Prosecution Service. In the same speech, he referred to ensuring that magistrates and district judges hold public meetings to be influenced in their decisions as judges.

David Blunkett: indicated assent.

Dominic Grieve: I note that the Home Secretary nods with approval.
	Will the Solicitor-General confirm that neither matter to which I have referred is the Home Secretary's departmental responsibility? Or are we to understand, from yesterday's comments, that there has in fact been a substantial change of policy on this matter? Were the Home Secretary's remarks approved by the Attorney-General and, for that matter—in relation to the judiciary—by the Lord Chancellor prior to being made?
	Does the Solicitor-General agree with me that the Home Secretary and the Home Office should have no departmental role in the operation of the Crown Prosecution Service or the judiciary because of the risk of political interference? Is it not for the Attorney-General, through his oversight, to protect the independence of the CPS and for the Lord Chancellor to do so in relation to the judiciary? If so, what are the Solicitor-General and the Attorney-General doing about that, in relation to what they have said to the Home Secretary on this matter?
	What is the background to the proposal on the CPS? The principle in this country is that the Crown is the font of all justice, independent of politics. Prosecutions are brought in the name of the Crown precisely to emphasise that point. A prosecutor, as I well remember, is reminded at the outset that his role is not partisan, but is that of a minister of justice. How does that square with the Home Secretary's comments that he wants the prosecutors to be on the side of the public? The Solicitor-General might have no difficulty agreeing with me that the public interest and the interest of a neighbourhood might not be one and the same.
	Why has there been neither an announcement nor any consultation whatever with Parliament on the proposals? Why was the Queen not informed of what the Government have proposed on such an important change?
	We learn today that, in response, the Government's spokesman to the Lobby gave the impression that the Government were now retreating on their proposal on the Crown Prosecution Service, emphasising that it was only an idea at the earliest stages of consultation. Will the Solicitor-General please tell the House who is right: the Home Secretary in his utterances yesterday or the Government's spokesman this morning? The House is entitled to know how the matter stands.
	The diminution of the role of the Crown is all of a piece with other Government proposals relating to the Prison Service, where officers who derive from the Crown their power to detain are going to lose their—

David Blunkett: No they are not. The hon. Gentleman should not read the Express.

Dominic Grieve: The Home Secretary intervenes from a sedentary position. If he were answering this question—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. The Home Secretary will have to be quiet. The shadow Solicitor-General is asking a question.

Dominic Grieve: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I am sorry that the Home Secretary has not taken the opportunity to answer this question. We shall not have the benefit of his words.
	Does the Solicitor-General agree that the problem with all these proposals is that they risk undermining the independence of the judicial system and the administration of justice? They will also undermine the Crown in its central role of ensuring the non-politicisation of the system of justice and, in the process, they will undermine our freedoms. Is it not significant that these comments come at a time when the Home Secretary is seeking vastly to extend his powers into the judicial system by a number of means? They include the removal of judicial scrutiny of asylum cases and the substitution of an administrative system, the desire that judges should conform to his ideas, and the removal of the ability of the Lords of Appeal and the Lord Chief Justice to speak in Parliament. Is it not the case that what is now happening—

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Dominic Grieve: I am asking a question.

Mr. Speaker: I know that the hon. Gentleman is asking a question, and I am listening. What I am trying to say is that the question is too long—[Interruption.] Order. An urgent question should be an extension of Question Time. The hon. Gentleman is putting such a long series of questions that I must now stop him. I call the Solicitor-General.

Harriet Harman: I have sought to answer this question because the hon. Gentleman asked about the Crown Prosecution Service. I therefore thought that it would be helpful to him and to the House for me to answer it, as the Attorney-General is responsible for superintending the Crown Prosecution Service. That is why I am here at the Dispatch Box.
	I should like to make it clear that there is no risk of politicisation of the Crown Prosecution Service. I would say to the hon. Gentleman that he is no more committed than the Attorney-General or me to the independence of the Crown Prosecution Service or to its carrying out its work in the public interest according to the code of Crown prosecutors. We stand by that and defend it, as the hon. Gentleman would expect us to. I think he knows that. The question then is whether it is right for Ministers responsible for the police to work together with Ministers responsible for the Crown Prosecution Service, and for them in turn to work together with the Ministers responsible for the courts. Of course it makes sense for there to be a partnership. We have argued, as has the hon. Gentleman, for good partnership at local level between the police, the Crown Prosecution Service and the courts, in the public interest and the interest of justice. The hon. Gentleman has been a supporter of that principle, which I welcome.
	It is right, too, that this principle should be embodied at area level, through the local criminal justice boards, which we have often discussed in the House. That involves a partnership between chief constables, chief Crown prosecutors and those responsible for the magistrates courts and Crown courts. That, too, is part of the partnership in the public interest and the interest of justice. Of course, people have their own independent responsibilities within that. Nothing changes that, but it is right that they should work in partnership. Just as we are asking people to work in partnership at local and area level, so it must be right that the Ministers responsible for those different agencies work together. That is what has happened.
	The hon. Gentleman made a great many other points. He asked why the Home Secretary said what he did. The answer is that he was asked a question. If the Home Secretary is asked a question, it is right that he should answer it. I would point out—[Interruption.] He was asked a question when he was engaged in a consultation. He was making a wide-ranging speech and he was asked a question that relates to an issue on which the Attorney-General has the lead. He was quite right to answer; it would have been very odd if he had not done so, so he answered.
	Conservative Members are in danger of getting ahead of themselves, so perhaps I might remind them that there has been discussion of this matter for some time. There is a broad-ranging programme of reform, with which the House has been involved, such as proposals for the criminal justice system under which the Crown Prosecution Service should take over from the police the responsibility of charging. That involves prosecutors working with the police in police stations. That was in the Criminal Justice Act 2003.
	The House was involved in discussing that as well as in discussing the opportunity for prosecutors to be able to appeal against terminal rulings. [Interruption.] Conservative Members wonder why I am raising these points, but I am trying to explain that those are the building blocks of a programme of improvement and change in the Crown Prosecution Service that will make it a self-confident prosecutor in the public interest in all areas. [Hon. Members: "Make a statement about it."] Conservative Members say that we should make a statement, but this has been discussed at Solicitor-General's questions. Such issues have been discussed in Committee and in the House.

Alan Duncan: What about the name change?

Harriet Harman: I will come back to the name change. Conservative Members should bear with me, because the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) raised many more questions in addition to the name change. I think it right that I should try to answer those. I am not trying to avoid the issue of the name change, but I have been asked many other questions.
	I understand that prisons will remain known as Her Majesty's prisons, but, as a means to bring together the probation service and the Prison Service, the overall service that employs those who work in probation and in prisons will be called the National Offender Management Service.

Alan Duncan: Name change?

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman should not shout across the Chamber. I call David Heath.

Alan Duncan: But what about the name change?

Mr. Speaker: Order. I tell you, Mr. Duncan, that you are defying the Chair. You will not do that. I call David Heath.

David Heath: I also regret the fact that the Home Secretary is not apparently accountable for his words when he interferes with the business of another Department of State.
	I believe that there is a case for the name change proposed for the Crown Prosecution Service, if not least to bring it in line with the nomenclature of the Director of Public Prosecutions, a post that, after all, we have had for 124 years. Indeed, there is a case to be made for increased transparency and effectiveness on behalf of the service. However, is it not important to differentiate between the activities of the prosecution and the judiciary and those of the Executive and the state? Is that not an important differentiation, which is made by the use of the term "Crown" and which needs to be maintained in the dealings of the Crown Prosecution Service?
	Will the Solicitor-General confirm that there is no question of changing the practice of mounting prosecutions in the name of the Crown? Will she confirm that for any name change to take place there would need to be primary legislation, not least the amendment of the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985?
	Whatever merits there may be for the case, it is simply not a matter in which the Home Secretary, of all Secretaries of State, should be involved because of that separation of the judiciary and the prosecution from the executive arm of the Home Office. Is this not, yet again, an argument for having a fully effective Department of Justice, which would take away such judicial matters from the province of the Home Secretary?
	Lastly, does not this episode smack of the confusion over the removal of the title "Lord Chancellor" and the proposals introduced last year? Is it not time for considered reform of the judicial system, not the disintegration of our systems by press release, Cabinet reshuffle or ministerial asides?

Harriet Harman: Of course, the Home Secretary is accountable for his words, but the shadow Attorney-General tabled this question, and the Attorney-General, to whom I am the deputy, is responsible for superintending the Crown Prosecution Service. Sometimes, during Solicitor-General's questions, you will appreciate, Mr. Speaker, that I get asked questions about the police. I do not say, "That is not a matter for me, I am not going to answer that question." If I think that I know the answer, I seek to give the House the information for which it asks and I say, "This is a matter for the Home Secretary, but I understand . . . " Similarly, if a Member asks a question that relates to issues that are the responsibility of the Department for Constitutional Affairs, I do not say, "Nothing to do with me, go and ask somebody else." I seek to answer such questions. Similarly, if the Home Secretary is asked at a public engagement a question related to the wider criminal justice system, which finds its centre of gravity within the Crown Prosecution Service, it is perfectly fair for him to answer the question, and he is accountable for his words.
	Hon. Members cannot have it both ways. We cannot have joined-up government, joined-up agencies and partnership in the interests of justice, and at the same time a kind of narrow, paranoid departmentalism. I am not in any doubt of the independence of the Crown Prosecution Service, nor do I fear for it. I stand here to defend that, as does the Attorney-General in the other place. All Crown prosecutors know that they have that backing from the Attorney-General and they implement the code accordingly. I therefore urge Members not to read something into the proposal when, on reflection, they know that it is an important programme of reform, of which partnership is an important part, that the Attorney-General is in no doubt about the importance of having an independent prosecution service, and that that is the situation.

Tam Dalyell: As one who pestered Sir Reginald Manningham-Buller, before my right hon. and learned Friend was born, with pertinent questions, may I ask whether this does not show that the Attorney-General should be in the House of Commons? Given the quality of the question asked earlier by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Medway (Mr. Marshall-Andrews), might not he be an admirable candidate?

Harriet Harman: It is a matter for the Prime Minister to appoint the Attorney-General and Solicitor-General, and I take seriously my responsibility to account to this House for the work of the Attorney-General. I do not therefore think that there is less accountability to this House, as I am absolutely clear and open with the House and speak on behalf of the Attorney-General in this House.

Douglas Hogg: May I ask Her Majesty's Solicitor-General what prior consultation there has been with Her Majesty's judges, those who command the Royal Navy and the Royal Air Force or officers of regiments with the prefix "Royal"? Does she not understand that this country has a long and proud history, and that the title "Royal" reminds us of that? Does she not understand, too, that few people who are not zealous republicans have any sympathy for the type of policy now being described?

Harriet Harman: The right hon. and learned Gentleman will recognise that too few people know what the Crown Prosecution Service is, and what it does. We want to make sure that people have confidence in the criminal justice system as a whole. They understand what the police do, and they understand what the courts do, but many of them are baffled about what the Crown Prosecution Service does. One of the things that the Crown Prosecution Service has been doing is seeking to engage with local communities to ensure that people understand what it does in the public interest. The question is whether, as part of a whole range of reforms—which I have already set out to the House, and which I do not want to rehearse again—changing the name would contribute to people's understanding of the enhanced and reformed role of the Crown Prosecution Service. Hon. Members should not therefore get too concerned about this.
	The right hon. and learned Gentleman asked whether judges had been consulted—

Douglas Hogg: Her Majesty's judges.

Harriet Harman: Her Majesty's judges, or her Majesty's regiments.
	There has been discussion within the Crown Prosecution Service, with the Director of Public Prosecutions. When the Attorney-General first mentioned the idea as a possibility, it was reported in the newspapers. It would not be true to say that no substantive change is being made, but I know that the whole House supports that change, and that it will be in the interests of everyone in the country.

Harry Cohen: Having removed the word "Crown" from the title of the Crown Prosecution Service, will the Government proceed to get rid of Crown immunity, especially in health and safety matters?

Harriet Harman: Having said that government is joined up, I do not think it would be right for me to answer a question about Crown immunity. What I will do is draw my hon. Friend's question to the attention of my colleague who is responsible for such matters.

John Redwood: Are the Government backing off from the idea of a name change, and how much would it cost if it went ahead?

Harriet Harman: No, there is no backing off. There is sensible discussion. It would be premature to discuss the cost, but I would say "As cheap as possible".

Chris Bryant: Will my right hon. and learned Friend come to the Rhondda to discuss with my constituents the changes to the Crown Prosecution Service and to its name? I think she would find that they would say, almost universally, "Hear, hear" to what the Home Secretary said yesterday. They would like a Crown Prosecution Service that is on the side of the public, because their experience so far has been, on the whole, that it only makes itself known to them when it is saying no to a prosecution and they are victims of crime.

Harriet Harman: I think that people have welcomed the changes undertaken by the Crown Prosecution Service on the Attorney-General's initiative. I think they want the service to be strengthened, reformed and improved. It will be a good thing if that can be made more visible by means of a name change that will enable the public to understand the process better. People understand the concept of Her Majesty's judges and are familiar with judges, but they are not familiar with the concept of the Crown Prosecution Service. Given that it is a public service that is responsible for prosecutions, it is important for people to know how it works, and how the criminal justice system works to protect their interests.

Lady Hermon: The Solicitor-General will know that the title of the Crown Prosecution Service in Northern Ireland was changed to "Public Prosecution Service" two years ago by the Justice (Northern Ireland) Act 2002. Would the Solicitor-General have a quiet word with her colleagues in the Northern Ireland Office to establish whether the sun, the moon and the stars fell out as a consequence?

Harriet Harman: I congratulate the Public Prosecution Service in Northern Ireland on the extensive changes it has undertaken, and congratulate the Northern Ireland Director of Public Prosecutions in particular. As the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) pointed out earlier, the Director of Public Prosecutions in England and Wales is called simply that, and does not have "Crown" in his title.
	I urge Members not to run away with themselves, but to focus on the substance. If a name change can assist in terms of the substance, it should be considered and implemented; but the objective is reform and improvement in the Crown Prosecution Service. We are certainly not backing off from the proposal that, as part of that, a name change should be considered.

George Foulkes: As you will understand, Mr. Speaker, I hesitate to ask a question lest I be accused again of toadying, self-serving sycophancy—but does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the original question of the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) was based on synthetic anger, inaccurate newspaper reports, pedantry and semantics? Will she confirm that in Scotland the procurators fiscal are quite capable of conducting prosecutions on behalf of the Crown without having the word "Crown" in their title?

Harriet Harman: That is true.
	I have mixed feelings. On the one hand, I feel that the hon. Member for Beaconsfield is reading rather too much into the proposal; on the other—without wanting to give him too much encouragement—I commend him for taking the accountability of his position seriously enough to present such issues to the House.

William Cash: Does the Solicitor-General accept that the proposed name change gives the impression of an increasing tendency towards touchy-feely republicanism? It is felt that implicit in the new title is a degree of movement towards state control. This is not just a matter of semantics. As the Solicitor-General knows, I tabled a written question to her on the nolle prosequi issue vis-à-vis the Katharine Gun prosecution—a serious matter, in respect of which she replied to me yesterday. Does she not accept that the role of the Attorney-General as holder of a prerogative right of the Crown to drop prosecutions is one of the most important constitutional issues before us today? Does she not agree that changing the name of the Crown Prosecution Service is actually a retrograde step, at a time when we should be emphasising the importance of the integrity and impartiality of the judicial process?

Harriet Harman: I do not see any contradiction between the independence of the Crown Prosecution Service and a change in its name. The two are not polar opposites.
	The hon. Gentleman says he has gained the impression that this is something to do with touchy-feely republicanism. Perhaps I can put his mind at rest. There is no intention of making the Crown Prosecution Service touchy-feely—[Hon. Members: "What about republicanism?"] I shall come to the point about republicanism. Let me deal with "touchy-feely" first. That is nonsense. We are talking about a serious programme of improvement and reform, involving many more prosecutors who will be able to bring offenders to justice swiftly, look after victims and witnesses properly, and make sure the system works. That is not touchy-feely; it is practical work in the public interest.
	As for republicanism, the name change was intended to give the public a better understanding of the new, reformed role of the Crown Prosecution Service. It is about moving closer to the idea that the public can understand the public interest.
	The hon. Gentleman did indeed ask me a question about the Katharine Gun case, and I have answered it. The answer to his further question about whether the Attorney-General's ability to issue a nolle prosequi was important is yes, it is. Is it going to be changed? No, it is not. As the hon. Gentleman will know, in the Katharine Gun case it was not appropriate or necessary even to consider a nolle prosequi, because it was a question of evidence.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I remind the House that Back Benchers are allowed only one supplementary question, not four. The hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) might remember that next time.

Jon Trickett: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that there is a real danger of loss of public confidence in the criminal justice system, much of it focused on the Crown Prosecution Service? There is confusion over its role and timidity in prosecutions, a turf war breaks out between the CPS and the police from time to time, and there is a failure to liaise with victims of crime. For all those reasons, should we not proceed rapidly with reform of the CPS?

Harriet Harman: I welcome my hon. Friend's question. He is absolutely right about the importance of public confidence in the criminal justice system; he is absolutely right about the confusion and misunderstanding surrounding the important role of the criminal justice system; he is absolutely right in saying that improving the way in which the system works must mean greater partnership; and he is absolutely right about the need for the Crown Prosecution Service, during the process of prosecutions, to give victims more support and information. It is on those issues that the House should focus.

Alan Beith: Have Ministers learned nothing from the mishandling of the announcement of the abolition of the Lord Chancellor? The Prime Minister admitted that it was not handled as well as it should have been, and it created anxieties about the independence of the judiciary from government. Given that there is no evidence that replacing the term "Crown" with the term "Public" will in some way enhance public confidence in the CPS—in fact, that it is determined by the factors that Members have referred to today, such as the extent to which account is taken of the concerns of victims of crime—why does the Solicitor-General believe that it is a significant factor in what is otherwise an important process of reform?

Harriet Harman: A name change for the Crown Prosecution Service will not by itself establish public confidence, but as part of a wide range of reforms it may well contribute to it. The right hon. Gentleman asks whether we have learned nothing from matters relating to the Lord Chancellor, but I should remind Members that the Attorney-General has been leading reforms of, and improvements to, the CPS since 2001. This is a long and ongoing programme of reform and change, and there is nothing sudden about it. What is sudden is the shadow Attorney-General's raising in this House the question of the name change, which I am attempting to answer. But there is no sudden programme of reform; indeed, we have discussed this issue continuously in the House.

John Taylor: Is not the prospect of magistrates' public meetings somewhat reminiscent of Bucharest under Ceausescu?

Harriet Harman: No, but the question of the judiciary's engagement with the public, in whose interests they do justice, is a difficult and sensitive one, and it is obviously important to get the balance right. However, in respect of the more effective prosecution of domestic violence, for example, I have welcomed seeing the magistracy and occasionally Crown court judges at conferences on such violence. There is nothing wrong with that; in fact, it is to be welcomed. We can trust the magistracy and the judiciary to know where to draw the line, and they do not need the hon. Gentleman to point out to them that they have to be independent. They know that, and they guard that independence jealously.

Edward Garnier: May I assure the Solicitor-General that in the courts in which I sit as a recorder, nobody is in any doubt as to what the Crown Prosecution Service means and what it does? Is she not in danger of becoming involved in an utterly fatuous desire to "modernise" the name of the prosecution service simply because the Government think it a more trendy thing to do? What is important is that the name be maintained, but that the functions of the CPS be improved through all sorts of methods. Changing the name is a simple waste of time and money.

Harriet Harman: I question whether everyone in the hon. and learned Gentleman's court is in no doubt about the role of the Crown Prosecution Service. I would hope that that is so, but I wonder whether all jurors really understand that role, and I suspect that many do not. I wonder whether all victims really understand that role, but I suspect that many do not. The same goes for witnesses and for those who might have the great opportunity to be in the public gallery when he is sitting as a recorder.
	The hon. and learned Gentleman says that the change is a waste of money, but as I said, there will be no waste of money. He also asks whether the change is "trendy", and the answer is no.

Henry Bellingham: The right hon. and learned Solicitor-General, for whom I have a lot of respect, talked about synthetic anger, but surely she must agree that her Government are obsessed with name-changing, political correctness and dumbing down the Crown. As my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) said, surely every single penny should be concentrated on the front line.

Harriet Harman: There is no question that this is part of some obsession with name changing for its own sake, and I absolutely deny that suggestion. The hon. Gentleman asks whether the change is part of dumbing down, but ensuring that the public understand the services that are so important to them is not dumbing down; it is legitimate and in the public interest.
	I get the sense that half the Opposition Members do not actually agree with what they are saying; in fact, many of them are more sensible than they are making out. Many agree with what we are doing, support the Crown Prosecution Service and understand its work. I ask them not to go off on a political tangent and make this a political issue. As Members will understand, the Attorney-General and I have never sought to use the CPS politically in any way, shape or form. This is not a dumbing down, trendy initiative, and if Members think hard about it, on reflection they will agree.

Mark Francois: Is the logical follow-on from this proposed change replacing Crown courts with people's courts within a few years? Does the Solicitor-General not realise that we in the United Kingdom are deeply proud of our royal traditions and that we wish to maintain them, instead of having the "people's this" and the "people's that" and becoming some kind of ersatz North Korea?

Harriet Harman: These thin end of the wedge arguments are wrong. For many years, the Director of Public Prosecutions has led the Crown Prosecution Service, and the fact that he is the DPP has not necessitated any other change anywhere else in the system. So I urge Members to step back, think a bit more calmly about this issue, consider whether they support the process that the CPS is going through—I know that they support the building blocks of the reform led by the Attorney-General—and not to lose sight of the important substance of reform and get themselves into a whirl about the name change.

House Building (Targets)

Bob Spink: I beg to move,
	That leave be given to bring in a Bill to enable local planning authorities to determine the number of houses built in their areas.
	As Sebastian O'Kelly, editor of Property on Sunday, says,
	"Like distant thunder, war is coming to England's peaceful shires . . .
	Battle is soon to be joined between Government and those who want to save something of the villages and countryside in the South East. It is a clash that will pitch all the power of central government, and the artful pleading of self-interested builders, against local democracy."
	Sebastian O'Kelly exposed a Treasury report that urged the building of 2.5 million more houses. As he said:
	"To build them, the Government needs to overturn the planning process that has existed for 50 years: a process that has spared us again and again from the most appalling excesses of ill-thought-out, speculative development."
	National recognition of the Government's planning changes now extends to local communities. For instance, on 5 January, Castle Point wildlife action group wrote as follows:
	"Like a lot of local people, we are very concerned about excessive development in the Borough, which is destroying much wildlife habitat and our quality of life . . . The Government's massive building programme will hugely exacerbate the problem."
	I congratulate the group on its care of our environment and wildlife, and I seek to legislate to reverse the Government's rapid move towards more building and less democratic local control over it. I should point out, of course, that not all new development is bad. We need more social housing in my constituency—perhaps 100 units or so—and more affordable housing for our children and for public sector workers, but we do not need the thousands of extra houses that the Government are trying to force on us.
	Let me illustrate the change in numbers. Castle Point borough council had a target of 2,400 new houses, and although we are well over half way through the planning period, only 700 have been identified and built. That shows how extravagant the target was. Yet the Government now want to impose a massively ramped-up target of 4,000 on Castle Point, to be built by 2021.
	Amazingly, though, Castle Point has got off lightly. Thurrock must build an astounding 18,500 new houses, Basildon 10,700 and Southend-on-Sea 6,000; and so it goes on. The Government are further increasing the target for Essex's house building to an outrageous 6,500 extra houses every year right up to 2021.
	The villain of the piece is, of course, the Deputy Prime Minister, who identified four growth areas: the fast-becoming-discredited Thames Gateway; Milton Keynes; Ashford and London; and Stansted and Cambridge. As the campaigning Steve Neale of the Yellow Advertiser put it, "Green belt loss looms" with 43,800 more houses earmarked for south Essex alone in the near future, threatening hundreds of acres of green belt. The Government seek to achieve that massive building by increasing density, packing them in and creating potential ghettos in a planning orgy like that of the 1960s, which created so many sink communities.
	But the Deputy Prime Minister has a problem. Decent local councillors, who are responsible for making planning decisions, refuse to go along with the Government's plans to build over our beautiful green belt and destroy our quality of life. They do so for very good reason. Local councillors are directly accountable to local people. They live in their local communities and therefore have a vested interest in protecting their environment. They also want sustainable development, which means new jobs, new infrastructure and new investment in public services.
	The editor of the Basildon Evening Echo hit the nail on the head on 28 January, writing:
	"Without a new integrated system of roads and public transport, the Gateway is just a dead duck in the Essex mud. The cash required to establish the necessary transport development is . . . £1.6 billion. Yet the Govt's road-finance plan fails to acknowledge the existence of the Thames Gateway. Or, for that matter, South Essex."
	Even now, we need improved infrastructure, particularly roads and public transport. We need public service improvements and investment in schools, doctors, dentists, sewage treatment plants and waste disposal. And we need to build up flood defences and stop building on flood plains. We need police stations that are open and offer access to the public, and more policemen on the beat to tackle thuggery and street crime levels that are entirely out of control and threatening to spawn dangerous vigilante responses, as I stated in the House last month.
	Faced with the local difficulty of councillors and editors protecting their local communities, as they should, the Government are removing planning powers from democratic control in those communities and imposing Big Brother controls from above. The Government's Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill changes the system from one in which there is considerable democratic input with local councils making decisions within local plans that comply with county council structure plans, which in turn reflect Government planning guidance, into one in which the Government will impose a regional "SS"—spatial strategies—abolishing local control and structure plans completely.
	Regional housing gestapos called regional housing boards will ensure delivery of the Government's massive increase in building, with cram-them-in densities and green belt destruction, whether communities like it or not. These "SSs" or gestapos, like all gestapos, are unelected, unaccountable, remote and faceless. Yet the Government present this new Labour policy as
	"neighbourhood renewal and neighbourhood renaissance".
	They use facile language to cover their dubious intent. They refuse to listen to the people as they bulldoze through our local democracy and our environment.
	The Minister for Housing and Planning visited my constituency a month ago on his Thames Gateway tour. He told the local papers that he wanted to
	"protect and improve the environment"
	on Canvey Island, which he described as having a "unique diversity''. He went on to say:
	"I am confident we can develop it."
	He did not seem to understand the irony and contradiction in his statement, which was reminiscent of the Deputy Prime Minister's exhortation that Labour's green belt policy was a great achievement and that they intended to build on it. The people of Castle Point did not need the Minister to tell them that they have a wonderful environment, nor that it needs protecting. They do need him to stop increasing the building targets that will destroy it. Sebastian O'Kelly made the argument against the increased building targets very well when he said that
	"nothing much needs to be done to redress the alleged housing shortage in the South East. The housing market itself is already offering a solution.
	Thanks to high property prices in the South, for the first time since the Sixties the great cities of the North are coming back to life. Residents are flooding back to the centres of Manchester, Newcastle, Leeds and, now, even Liverpool.
	The whole of Britain's economy, that has been dangerously tilted towards the South East, is at last beginning to right itself and wealth is spreading through to the distant regions far more evenly. Do we really want to endanger this laudable trend by building masses of cheap houses for uncertain demand in the South East?"
	We all know that when politicians stop listening, the public will vote them out. That is Labour's destiny.
	In short, my Bill draws attention to the Government's increase in building targets, removal of local democracy and lack of sustainable infrastructure investment. My Bill would enable local planning authorities to determine the number of houses built in their areas. It would lead, therefore, to the protection of local democracy, a reduction in the number of new houses, higher quality development that is in touch with local needs, environmental protection and improved infrastructure. My Bill would truly safeguard communities. It simply puts trust where it should be—in the people—as opposed to Labour's Big Brother approach of imposing inappropriate targets and destroying democracy. I commend the Bill to the House.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Bill ordered to be brought in by Bob Spink, Mr. Peter Lilley, Mr. Eric Pickles, Mr. Simon Burns, Mr. David Amess, Mr. Mark Francois, Sir Teddy Taylor, Mr. Andrew Rosindell, Angela Watkinson, Mr. John Baron, Ann Winterton and Mr. John Redwood.

House Building (Targets)

Bob Spink accordingly presented a Bill to enable local planning authorities to determine the number of houses built in their area: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 18 June, and to be printed [Bill 65]. Opposition Day

[6th Allotted Day]

Trade Justice for the Developing World

Mr. Speaker: Before I call the hon. Gentleman to move the motion, I inform the House that I have selected the amendment standing in the name of the Prime Minister.

John Bercow: I beg to move,
	That this House shares the concern of the Trade Justice Movement about the plight of the poorest people in the world, and congratulates the Movement on bringing their conditions to the attention of the public; notes with concern the fact that more than one billion people live on less than one dollar a day, that life expectancy in many African countries is declining, that 28 million people in Africa have HIV/AIDS, and that the poorest countries' share of world trade has fallen sharply in the last two decades; recognises that the combination of trade distorting subsidies by rich countries and barriers to products from poor countries have gravely damaged the latter; believes that trade liberalisation and increased international trade offer the best hope of alleviating poverty in the developing world; regrets the breakdown of the WTO talks in Cancun; and urges the Government both to press for the talks to restart and to publish its proposals for the reform of agricultural subsidies and the reduction of trade barriers to give poor countries the fair deal on international trade that will allow them to compete and grow.
	It is a particular pleasure and privilege to move this motion in Fairtrade fortnight and, at least in part, in recognition of the invaluable contribution to development work and political debate that has been made by the Trade Justice Movement.
	I begin by simultaneously pleasing and displeasing. I am not here this afternoon, in valuable Opposition time, on a crucial issue of national and international importance, to pick a fight with the Government; I have no desire to do that. Indeed, I would almost go so far—although perhaps not quite, Mr. Speaker—as to offer to do a deal with the Secretary of State. That would be to say to him that if he would accept what he knows to be true—that there is real merit in the Opposition motion—I would be prepared similarly to concede that there is real merit in the Government's amendment. My purpose this afternoon is not to cavil and not to play political ping-pong. It is to highlight an evil, to describe as best I can the incidence of that evil and to suggest how that evil might best be tackled by people in all political parties who share good will on this matter.
	The subject that we are debating—I know this is often said, but it happens to be true in this case—is equal to, and probably almost greater than, any other in its importance for the future of our world. We are debating the plight of the poor, and the features and manifestations of the plight of the poor are palpable, sometimes endemic, always serious.
	There are currently on our planet 1.2 billion people who have to exist—I will not say that they live—on less than a dollar a day. There are 50 countries in this world that are poorer now than they were a decade ago. Every minute of the day one woman dies in pregnancy or in labour; in the process of trying to give birth, her life ends. There are 28 million people around the world suffering from HIV/AIDS. And, as the Secretary of State knows, the poorest countries in the world have suffered a cut of approximately half in their share of world trade in the last two decades. That is the scale and those are the dimensions of the crisis and—I use the word advisedly—the evil that we are this afternoon considering.

Chris Grayling: My hon. Friend rightly mentioned HIV/AIDS. Is he aware that the threat goes far beyond the humanitarian issue? I have had feedback from people working on the ground in East Africa to the effect that the prevalence and growth of HIV/AIDS are being exploited by militants, particularly Islamic militants, to try to establish footholds in those countries. Therefore, not only do we have a humanitarian obligation, but it is in our self-interest to make sure that these issues are addressed properly.

John Bercow: My hon. Friend makes a powerful point, and I agree with every word that he has just said.
	We must not be simplistic about this. There is no one cause of poverty in the third world. The problems that the people of the developing countries endure are multi-faceted and do not lend themselves to the administration of a simple cure. But upon one point I hope all of us in the Chamber can agree: we have an obligation to do nothing to exacerbate the plight of the poor, and, by contrast, to do everything we reasonably can to tackle and alleviate that plight.

Colin Challen: rose—

Tony Baldry: rose—

John Bercow: I give way to my hon. Friend, the Chairman of the International Development Committee.

Tony Baldry: My hon. Friend will be conscious that there was rather a lot of joshing during questions to the Secretary of State for International Development about the 0.7 per cent. target and commitments to international development aid. Can my hon. Friend confirm that the commitment of the Conservative party and its aspiration to meet that 0.7 per cent target is no less than the aspiration of the Government to meet the 0.7 per cent. target? It is a recognition of the difficulty of reaching that target that the Chancellor has moved to the international finance facility, which I understand the Conservative party fully supports.

John Bercow: My hon. Friend is absolutely right in what he has just suggested about the explicit and long stated support of my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the Opposition for the international finance facility. My hon. Friend knows me well; we are constituency neighbours. He is aware that I have a number of aspirations. One aspiration that I have this afternoon is to make the position of the official Opposition on this subject clear beyond peradventure.

Colin Challen: rose—

John Bercow: I shall give way in a moment.
	My right hon. Friend the shadow Chancellor has set out our plans to contain the overall level of departmental expenditure. Individual allocations remain to be decided. We are looking closely at the scope for savings and efficiency in the use of public expenditure. We are also considering the better use of money currently spent on a multilateral basis. Yet make no mistake: a future Conservative Government would be committed to Britain's overseas aid programme, for well directed bilateral Government aid has to remain a significant component of our aid strategy. I hope that the House will agree that that is a crystal-clear statement of the policy intent of the Conservative party.

Colin Challen: rose—

John Bercow: I give way to the hon. Gentleman, who has been waiting so patiently.

Colin Challen: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. I absolutely agree with him that there is great deal of agreement between the motion and the amendment before us. I do not think that that is in contention. But the hon. Gentleman referred to an evil. Might he be referring to the last 20 years of trade liberalisation, which his own motion makes clear has probably contributed to increased poverty? I sometimes wonder whether people have really grasped the fact that trade liberalisation has not yet produced the goods.

John Bercow: I respect the hon. Gentleman's sincerity—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) should endeavour to exercise what self-restraint he is very occasionally able to muster. If he wishes to be patient, I may give way. If he does not, I will not. The position is clear, and the choice is his.
	Let me say to the hon. Member for Morley and Rothwell (Mr. Challen) that I greatly respect his sincerity. I do not agree with him where there is a genuine difference of opinion between us. He thinks that liberalisation of trade has been damaging. I believe that it has been beneficial, though there is much more to be done. He will not be surprised to know that I have a great deal more to say on that important subject. Perhaps we can joust in a friendly way, in recognition that we both want a decent end, but we differ about how to achieve it.

John Gummer: rose—

John Bercow: I should like at this stage to make some progress, but of course I give way to my right hon. Friend.

John Gummer: Before my hon. Friend returns, as I hope he will, to the point that he was talking about, would he not agree that in the world in which we live our interdependence is such in solving such problems as the challenge of climate change or the destruction of the ozone layer, or indeed of world trade, that we have to work together with countries, however poor and however restricted, and that our aid programme is a very important part of that?

John Bercow: My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. There would not be a cigarette paper, or anything less noxious than that, between us on the point.
	I said that we had an obligation not to worsen the situation, and that we should instead do all we could to improve the plight of the poor. I want to develop this theme. I said that although that was our obligation, it was not, sadly, reflected in public policy on an international scale at present.
	The reality is that the plight of the poor is not a misfortune. It is in very substantial measure an injustice. That trade injustice from which the developing world suffers is not the result of bad weather, defective infrastructure or a natural disaster. Indeed, I go so far as to say that it is not an accident at all. It is the knowing, deliberate and calculated policy of the most powerful Governments on earth. Trade discrimination on a grotesque scale is substantially to blame for the poverty of people in the developing world. It is shameful and shameless, and we have a responsibility to address it.
	I think that I am right in saying that there are three principal components of the problem. First, there is a mismatch between aid policy and trade policy. In 2002 the countries of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development gave $58 billion to the poorest countries in development assistance. But there was a chronic contradiction between aid policy and trade policy.
	That leads me to the second point, which is that simultaneously the developed world, the rich countries, the most prosperous on earth, were stinging the developing countries to the tune of approximately $100 billion in trade barriers.
	The third feature of the equation is the impact of massive, wholly disproportionate, trade-distorting domestic agricultural subsidies. Those subsidies are on a scale of $300 billion. That is the extent of it—a sum of money that exceeds the entire national income of the whole of sub-Saharan Africa. The contradiction between aid policy and trade policy; the impact of tariff and non-tariff barriers; the impact of export subsidies and domestic protection; the effect of tariff peaks on the one hand and tariff escalation on the other—in real measure deliberately targeted on the products and capacity of the poorest people on the planet: all that is truly devastating for those whose condition we wish to improve.

John Redwood: My hon. Friend is making a powerful and passionate speech against a gross injustice. I entirely agree that there is a great moral blight on the west and on the European Union for its agricultural policies and protectionism. What advice does my hon. Friend have for the new Secretary of State on how he can get some action out of this lame, weak and feeble Government, who will not stand up to the EU and demand justice for the poor of the world by demanding abolition of the disgraceful policy of agricultural protectionism, which disfigures us all?

John Bercow: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his intervention, and the short answer is that I want the Secretary of State to put on record this afternoon—I am hopeful that he will—exactly how he intends to advance the process of trade liberalisation.

Huw Irranca-Davies: rose—

John Bercow: I have referred to the overall components of the problem, but it is worthy of a brief illustration. If we examine what is happening to cotton, for example, we can see the damage inflicted by the incredibly selfish and destructive trade policies of one of the most powerful—if not the most powerful—nations on earth. I am talking about the impact of US trade policy on west and central African cotton-dependent economies. The truth of the matter is that Benin and Burkina Faso depend on cotton for 40 per cent., and Mali and Chad for 30 per cent., of their export earnings. Those countries are efficient and cost-effective producers of cotton; they need it; it is crucial to their chances of survival and development.
	The United States is one of the highest-cost, least efficient and most trade-distorting producers of cotton to be found anywhere in the world. Frankly, it is a damnable indictment—I use the expression advisedly—of the US Government that they currently spend more than $3 billion a year subsidising inefficient cotton manufacture. That costs the developing world about $250 million a year and throws people out of work. The US is spending and subsidising its own inefficient cotton production, and feather-bedding 10 rather large US corporations with three times the country's budget contribution to the whole of Africa. That is the scale of what is happening.

Bob Spink: May I bring my hon. Friend back to Europe? We are, of course, a member of the EU and have a crucial responsibility in Europe. Is it not disgraceful that European protectionism damages the developing world so dramatically?

John Bercow: My hon. Friend is right. He will be aware, and the rest of the House should be reminded, that in 2002 the EU spent $113 billion on domestic agricultural protection. That is wrong; it inflicts harm; and I regret it.
	My hon. Friend has helpfully brought me on to my second example—dairy policy. It is a serious problem. Currently, the EU subsidises every cow to the tune of about $2.40, when there are 2 billion people in the world who live—or exist—on less than $2 a day. Britain spends approximately £4 billion on the common agricultural policy, while many countries—Kenya, India, the Dominican Republic and many others besides—have had their domestic markets, their prospects of advance and their capacity to improve their condition enormously undermined through the selfish application of that policy over a long period. It has been hugely damaging.
	I am conscious—if I do not make the point, others will remind me—that there is a CAP reform package, aspects of which are welcome. However, the Secretary of State, many right hon. and hon. Members and I would agree that there is still a great deal to do and much further to go. It is not surprising that there is a pervasive cynicism about the likely efficacy of the reform package, for the simple reason that one does not need to look into the crystal ball when one can read the book. We have been there before; there have been earlier reform packages; we have seen changes made. There have been prospective alterations in, and even reductions of, the trade-distorting support, but they have not always worked.
	The reality is that, in its operation over a lengthy period, the CAP has clobbered the consumer. It has clobbered the taxpayer and the small-scale farmer. It has also clobbered businesses that are dependent on agricultural products. Above all, and most central to our debate today, it has clobbered the developing world, which deserves a better deal, a chance to compete and grow, a chance to raise its expectations and to improve living standards. It should have a realistic prospect that public policy will not stop it from doing so. That is the seriousness of the issue that we are debating.

Mark Francois: I am listening to my hon. Friend's speech with great interest. Before he makes further progress, does he agree that, although he is an Atlanticist by instinct—as am I—the US bears a particular responsibility on this one issue and that it must make some concessions with its Farm Bill if the rest of the world is to make progress?

John Bercow: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. He and I have been Atlanticists together since we stood against each other for the chairmanship of the Federation of Conservative Students in April 1986. He was a fan of the US then and he is now. I was a fan of the US then and I am now, but that does not stop me criticising the US Government when what they do is wrong. We must address the question of what can be done to improve the prospects of destitute people by way of trade reform.

Huw Irranca-Davies: rose—

John Bercow: I shall give way for the last time—and I mean it.

Huw Irranca-Davies: I am grateful. To return to the hon. Gentleman's previous discussion about clarity—I applaud his reasonable approach in the debate and agree with many of his points—he expressed a commitment towards many of the Government's measures, but many people would want to know whether that commitment extends to protecting or enhancing the aid budget. I agree that there must be a multi-faceted approach—there has to be, and trade liberalisation is part of it—but the international aid budget is paramount.

John Bercow: The aid budget is extremely important, so the hon. Gentleman makes a fair point. I would say in response, however, that I have given the most explicit statement of the current thinking of the Conservative party and I quoted my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe in the process. As far as I am aware, the hon. Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies) is not a doctor. If he were, and if he were in the habit of offering his prescription before he had conducted his diagnosis, he would not be a very effective practitioner. It seems reasonable to study the budget, to examine what is and is not working well, to assess what measures are most effective at bilateral level and least effective at multilateral level, to reach a conclusion, to produce a policy, to outline it to the House, to put it to the country and to await the verdict. That is the eminently reasonable position that the Conservative and Unionist party has taken—

Chris Bryant: rose—

John Bercow: I am probably doing the House a disservice, but I suppose I had better give way to the hon. Gentleman.

Chris Bryant: The hon. Gentleman's generosity is unbounded. He was trying to make out earlier that he was being extremely clear, but his clarity is not very clear. He is trying to suggest that he aspires somewhere towards the 0.7 per cent. figure, but he offers no guarantee that he will move up towards that percentage at all—unless he expects that, under a Conservative Government, gross domestic product would fall, so he might get closer to the 0.7 per cent. but the amount of money would remain the same.

John Bercow: The disadvantage of the hon. Gentleman talking about clarity that is unclear is that it serves only to remind the House that he is in danger of confusing not only it but himself. That seems a regrettable state of affairs and I am not sure that I have done the House a great service by giving way to him—[Interruption.] He has had one go and made a mess of it, and I can assure him that he will not get another opportunity during this debate.
	We have a responsibility to take matters forward. We need to establish freer trade and to go for liberalisation. We know what the estimates are: they range from an increase of $150 billion in world trade, as the consequence of a 50 per cent. cut in tariffs, to the prognosis of the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank and the OECD whereby a figure that ranges from $250 billion to $620 billion will be added to world trade if we go for liberalisation.
	That, of course, is the theory—the prognosis—but again we should be guided by the evidence and consider the example set by countries that have themselves gone for free trade. We can see in China, India, Mexico, Vietnam and Uganda a common thread in their policy and performance: increased productivity, a greater share of world trade, a capacity to bolster their export performance and a demonstrable improvement in living standards. That is obviously good sense.
	Cancun—the breakdown of the trade talks thereat—was very sad. I do not share the view of those who think it was beneficial to the world; it was extremely damaging. It is important that we get those talks back on track and I appeal to the Secretary of State to set out the Government's position explicitly and in detail, because my right hon. and hon. Friends and I are convinced that we need to remind ourselves of the objectives of the Doha development round. We need to remember the negotiating mandate agreed in November 2001; it is about improving market access, reducing export subsidies, cutting and, in many cases, phasing out those subsidies and reducing the level of domestic agricultural trade-distorting subsidy. Those critical tasks must be undertaken, and my submission to the House is that that is all about free enterprise and the practice of capitalism.
	Capitalism is not a panacea; it is not perfect. The Secretary of State's distinguished father spent nearly 50 years in the House eloquently inveighing against capitalism, but in my view it is the best we have. Capitalism has three distinctive advantages. First, it is the greatest wealth-creating mechanism known to mankind; secondly, it has tended to improve living standards in every country in which it has applied; and, thirdly, it is the economic system most compatible with personal liberty. For those reasons, it is in a free-market, trade-encouraging, capitalist-oriented direction that we need to go.

Ann McKechin: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

John Bercow: No, not at this stage.
	As we go in that direction, however, those of us in the rich western world have to examine our attitudes; we need to consider how we behave, because we require a wholly different mindset from that which has been deployed hitherto. We need an end to brinkmanship and a start to statesmanship.
	I do not want to dwell excessively on the past, but it was desperately unfortunate that, at Cancun, the European Union made the major mistake of pressing ahead so insistently, for so long and to such disadvantage with the Singapore issues of trade facilitation, transparency in Government procurement, and investment and competition, when the whole purpose and raison d'être of the conference was to achieve a development round. Previously, development rounds had been principally for the benefit of the richer countries—they had focused on manufactured goods and the needs and preferences of the industrialised countries. The task now is to do something for those who have very little, yet what we have witnessed is the exertion of massive power by those who have against those who have not. That seems wrong.
	Present trade policies of which the United States, the EU, sometimes Japan and China, and many others besides are guilty are morally wrong. They are economically counter-productive and politically dangerous. One-nation Tories, of whom there is a plentiful supply on the Opposition Benches today, know that Governments cannot do everything—but they can do something to help. One-nation Tories know that if one is confronted with the choice of giving people $10 a day or enabling them to earn $10 day, the latter is infinitely preferable. One-nation Tories know that it is in our attitude, and that of all democratic politicians, to the liberalisation of agriculture that the sincerity and credibility of our claims to be fighting world poverty will ultimately be tested; for 70 per cent. upwards of the world's poor live in rural areas and depend on agriculture.
	I believe that we must go for free trade, and that we must open markets and liberalise. I believe that the Secretary of State should tell us more about that today, because liberalisation and free trade would be good for poor countries, good for consumers in rich countries, good for the generation of prosperity and good for the state of international relations.
	Members of the House, of whatever party, presumably aspire to bequeath to our children and our children's children a world in which the blemish and scar of global poverty have gone. It disfigures the world and, in a very real sense, shames and discredits us. We need to change that. We need to reform and make progress. We need to achieve liberalisation. Let us work together and achieve something for our constituents, but above all, let us achieve something for the most destitute people on the planet. They have suffered too much for too long as a result of too selfish policies. It is time that that was changed.

Hilary Benn: I beg to move, To leave out from "House" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
	"welcomes this debate and congratulates the Trade Justice Movement on its efforts to raise public awareness of this vital issue; reiterates the commitment made in the White Paper Eliminating World Poverty: Making Globalisation Work for the Poor to improve international trade rules; urges the European Union to make further progress on reforming the Common Agriculture Policy regimes for cotton, sugar, tobacco and olive oil; welcomes the UK's call for action on HIV/AIDS; congratulates the Government on the £160 million it has allocated to trade-related capacity building in developing countries since 1998; welcomes the fact that the UK's aid budget for Africa will rise to over £1 billion by 2005; welcomes the launch of a new initiative, the Commission for Africa, to take a fresh look at the challenges Africa faces; notes that a successful Doha Round could contribute substantially to the achievement of the Millennium Development Goals; congratulates the Government on the lead it has taken within the EU and the WTO to promote free and fair trade; believes that significant progress must be made to improve access for developing country exports to both developed and developing country markets, including through substantial reductions in trade distorting agricultural subsidies; calls on all WTO members to continue to demonstrate their commitment to the Doha Development Agenda; and underlines this House's commitment to ensuring the Doha Round produces real benefits for the poor."
	I very much welcome the opportunity to hold this debate. I also welcome much of what the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) said and the passion and characteristic eloquence with which he said it, which got us off to an extremely good start.
	I listened with particular interest to the words that the hon. Gentleman read out about Conservative spending commitments, but I have to tell him in all honesty that I am not much the wiser. It sounded as though the words had been drafted by a lawyer, so although we shall try to appreciate exactly what the Conservative party's aspiration is on the figure of 0.7 per cent., I hope that he and other colleagues will forgive us if we look at the record. When the Labour Government left office in 1979, we were spending 0.52 per cent. of our gross national income on overseas aid, but when we returned to office in 1997, spending was 0.26 per cent. That was the legacy bequeathed us by the Conservatives, so I am afraid that the record of the hon. Gentleman's party hangs like an albatross around his neck. He will have to grapple with that, although I am sure he will do so ably.
	I, too, welcome the fact that the debate is taking place at the beginning of Fairtrade fortnight, which is all about the things that we can do personally to try to remedy the inequities of the current trade system. The fair trade movement is all about consumers trying to ensure that poor producers get a fairer return. The idea is simple: it reaches out across the globe and connects buyer and seller, and does not depend on the world trade talks for something to happen. That is what makes it so powerful. We can see the results in the sharply growing market for Fairtrade products—tea, coffee, orange juice, flowers, footballs, bananas—which are increasingly available on the shelves of leading supermarkets. It is estimated that fair trade is worth £100 million a year. We support the Fairtrade Foundation and I take this opportunity to thank it for its work.
	Ethically sourced and fairly traded products are only part of the solution to what the hon. Gentleman rightly described as a series of complex challenges facing poor producers and developing countries. I agree with him that what we really need to do is to help developing countries gain access to the global marketplace and to create fairer trade rules in the World Trade Organisation.
	The first thing for the House to acknowledge, however, is how far, in one sense, we have already come. From the earliest times, the history of human relationships has, in part, been the history of trade and, as trade has grown and become global, we have established systems to try to manage it. For some, trade has brought enormous wealth; for others—especially those denied access to the markets of the world—it has not, and the hon. Gentleman spoke clearly about the consequences of that.
	For almost half a century, the general agreement on tariffs and trade was primarily concerned with tariffs on industrial products and was dominated by the developed countries. Agriculture, which is the issue for developing countries, was included in the multilateral negotiations at the Uruguay round, concluded a decade ago—about the time that the WTO itself was created.
	Today, we are talking seriously in Geneva about an end date for export subsidies. With last summer's historic breakthrough on CAP reform, we are committed to making significant reductions in trade-distorting domestic subsidies. This is a very substantial change compared with a generation ago, and over that same period the link between development and trade has become central to the multilateral trade negotiations. Never mind a decade ago—40 years ago it would have been inconceivable for the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to be such passionate advocates of the interests of developing countries in trade talks.
	In the same way, it is inconceivable that 40 years ago we would have seen something like last summer's record-breaking mass constituency lobby organised by the Trade Justice Movement, in which I know many hon. Members took part. That lobby showed the extent of the groundswell of public opinion in support of freer and fairer trade. I take the opportunity, as the original motion and the Prime Minister's amendment do, to pay tribute to the Trade Justice Movement for the work it has done to make this happen and for keeping the issue at the forefront of the public's mind. All that passion, and all that commitment, which is shared by many people across the world, helped the UK to play its part in bringing trade and development issues to the fore, including in the result of the Doha round.

Patrick McLoughlin: What did the Secretary of State find so objectionable in the motion tabled by the Leader of the Opposition that the Government felt they had to amend it?

Hilary Benn: There is much in the motion with which I agree, but the amendment includes things that it did not cover, and I invite the House to support the amendment at the appropriate moment.

John Gummer: The Secretary of State could have agreed with the motion, and we could all have begun Fairtrade fortnight with a united motion. Would it not have been better if he had been a little less churlish and had said that the motion might not go as far as he would like but that he would accept it to show that both sides agree on these matters?

Hilary Benn: I think that the debate has already demonstrated that there is a shared analysis and a lot of common ground—one or two things divide us—but I would return the request to the right hon. Gentleman and simply say, in that same spirit, that I look forward to seeing him in the Lobby in support of the Prime Minister's amendment when that moment arrives.

Robert Walter: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way on that point?

Hilary Benn: It is a third go but I am a generous soul, so of course I give way.

Robert Walter: I have studied the Prime Minister's amendment closely and it uses the words,
	"urges the European Union to make further progress on reforming the Common Agriculture Policy regimes for cotton, sugar, tobacco and olive oil".
	Does that mean that the Government have given up on any further reforms to the common agricultural policy and that we are going to be stuck with European farmers being subsidised to the tune of nearly Euro50 billion a year?

Hilary Benn: No, it does not mean that because the Government have clearly set out their view on the need for reform, but the amendment also makes specific reference to the products that the hon. Gentleman has just read out.

Jim Cunningham: Does my hon. Friend recall that successive Conservative Governments promised to reform the common agricultural policy but singularly failed to do so?

Hilary Benn: I do indeed, and if the House were being honest with itself it would recognise that reform of the CAP has been a consistent theme running through our political debates in the House for 30 years, which is what makes the agreement that was reached last summer, with the tireless efforts of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, such an achievement.
	If the current round is to succeed, it must address the unfairness of the world trade system, whereby, for example, developing country cocoa producers receive only a fraction of the retail price of products such as chocolate. Developing countries have 90 per cent. of the world market in cocoa beans but just 4 per cent. of global chocolate production. That is just one example of how little of the final value is captured by developing countries.
	Why does all this matter? First, it matters because three quarters of the world's poor live in rural areas and 96 per cent. of the world's farmers live in developing countries. As the Chancellor of the Exchequer said recently, when 900 million farmers in poor countries struggle to survive on less than a dollar a day while rich people in rich countries spend millions a day on subsidising agriculture, something is very wrong and it has to change.
	Secondly, it matters because there is a great deal of evidence that the opening up of trade contributes to higher economic growth, which is just what developing countries need. For example, in the 1990s, while average income fell by 1 per cent. a year in developing countries with high trade barriers, it rose by 5 per cent. a year in those with fewer barriers to trade. The World Bank estimates that up to half the gains from eliminating barriers to merchandise trade would accrue to developing countries, which could lift more than 300 million people out of poverty by 2015.

Ann McKechin: My right hon. Friend has made a very correct point about the need to reduce barriers, but does he agree that the least developed countries are not likely to gain as much from trade liberalisation as countries such as China and India, and that the aid budget and the amount of aid that we give in debt relief therefore still remain the most vital elements?

Hilary Benn: I do agree with my hon. Friend. That is why a rising aid budget—rising support—is so important, and it is also why the way in which countries are asked to open up their trade is so important. I intend to come to that point later.

John Bercow: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Hilary Benn: I will give way, although I want to make progress; I know that many other hon. Members want to speak.

John Bercow: I am sorry to interrupt the flow of the right hon. Gentleman's eloquence—or even the eloquence of his flow—but it seems to me that in recognising that over decades the common agricultural policy has been the most protectionist racket known to mankind, we need to know in some reasonable measure of detail how the Government intend to proceed. Could the right hon. Gentleman give some indication of what stance the British Government are taking within the European Union, in respect of the CAP as a whole at the development negotiations, and in respect of a number of the commodities to which his amendment refers?

Hilary Benn: Indeed, I will. If the hon. Gentleman will contain himself a little while longer, I intend to come to those important points.
	The third reason why all this matters is that it is through economic development that we stand the best chance of enabling poor people in poor countries to earn and trade their way out of poverty. Africa is the only continent that has actually got poorer in the last generation; its share of world trade has halved. It cannot even hang on to just under half of the savings that it generates each year, and yet we know it needs to grow at 7 per cent. a year if we are to have any prospect of meeting the millennium development goals.
	Fourthly, all this matters because the longer the multilateral trade system fails to deliver for the world's poor, the longer poverty will persist and basic services such as health care and education will be denied. I saw one of the consequences of that during my recent visit to Ethiopia. I shall never forget visiting the health centre in Mekane Salam, which serves a community of 180,000 people but has no doctor. One consequence of the lack of a doctor is that when women come in with complications of pregnancy, and the people who work very hard to run the centre realise that they cannot assist, the women are referred on to the hospital 100 miles away. When I asked what happened to those women, the staff said, "To tell you the truth we have no idea how many of those women make it, because there is no transport to take them to the hospital. There is a bus once a week, but they have to be able to afford the fare, and they might well die of the complications of pregnancy before the bus arrives." That is really all the illustration that the House needs, and it comes from a recent experience of mine, which demonstrates why this matters, because this is about the daily lives of fellow human beings of ours, who do not benefit from the things that we take for granted. That is one reason why 2005 will be a year both of opportunity and of expectation—expectation that this time we, collectively, the world, will deliver.
	What are we doing? That is the challenge that the hon. Member for Buckingham put to me. We recognise the failure of the Cancun meeting, although the one thing that did come out of Cancun was that the voice of developing countries was heard more loudly and clearly than at any previous world trade talks, and I, for one, unreservedly welcome that.
	Between now and 2005, the US elections will take place, the existing Commission for Africa will come to the end of its life and a new one will be appointed, and elections will take place in many other WTO countries over the next two years. That has led some people to question whether it will be possible to make progress in the world trade talks. I happen to think that progress can be made, not just because of the consensus on trade justice issues that has been expressed in recent debates in the House and elsewhere, but because everyone now recognises that the Cancun meeting was a missed opportunity, a failure of political will. I hope that that will encourage everyone to work much harder next time to ensure that we are successful.
	What do we need to do, and how will we do it? That is the key question. First, we must get developed and developing countries to engage in the round and to open their markets, particularly to the least-developed countries. Secondly, we must secure new agreements on the issues that matter most to developing countries—agriculture and non-agricultural market access. We must also push—the hon. Member for Buckingham did not refer to this in his speech—for more effective special and differential treatments, to which I shall return. We will help developing countries to adapt to their new obligations through the development of appropriate adjustment mechanisms. What are we doing to try to help to make that happen?
	The round will not be a true development round if the WTO and its members retreat into protectionism; developed and developing countries must stand up to powerful domestic lobbies. There are some recent encouraging signs of greater engagement and a new resolve to make progress. Both Bob Zoellick and Commissioner Pascal Lamy are now talking to a range of WTO members, and member states are talking about what they need to do to get the round back on track. That underlines the need for, and the responsibility of, the richer WTO members to seize the initiative, show leadership and make meaningful offers and concessions to get the round back on track.
	I agree very much with the point about the new issues, to which the hon. Member for Buckingham also referred, that the International Development Committee made in its very good report on the lessons of the Cancun meeting. The honest truth is that the developing countries have made their position very clear on investment and competition. At the end of the Cancun meeting, those issues were taken off the table, and I have said on a number of occasions that, having disappeared from the table, they should stay off the table. There are sound arguments about why it is good to make progress on public procurement and trade facilitation, but, in the end, they should not stand in the way of achieving a development round, and we need to be absolutely clear about that.

Chris Bryant: This is, in a sense, a slightly different issue, but my right hon. Friend refers to a series of issues that was taken off the table. Audio-visual and cultural services have been included in previous rounds in a rather negative way—France has tried to protect itself against American trade—but China, which has come into the WTO in the past few years, is trying to ensure that audio-visual services, such as free and independent news, are not made available in China. Could we not use the next round, when one comes along, to ensure that China opens up its market in the interests of ending human rights abuses?

Hilary Benn: My hon. Friend raises a number of issues that will be the subject of debate. As a matter of general principle, free news media are very important features of any society that hopes to function and thrive. All our experience demonstrates that independent media help to promote good governance. They make the Government's life difficult from time to time, but we have to live with that in the interests of democracy.

Colin Challen: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Hilary Benn: I want to make a bit of progress, and then I will give way.
	New developing country groupings emerged at the Cancun ministerial meeting. One of the things that we have to recognise is that the interests of developing countries are not uniform, and we saw that with the G20 group and the G90 alliance. They, too, have a responsibility to help to move the negotiations forward. In particular, they need to reduce the barriers to south-south trade because countries such as India, Brazil, China and other significant countries stand to benefit, alongside the poorer producers, from trade liberalisation. South-south trade now accounts for more than a third of developing country exports—about $650 billion.
	The World Bank suggests that, during the past 15 years or so, developing countries' own liberalisation has been the primary channel through which trade reform has expanded their export growth. For example, negotiations on a common market are taking place as we speak between Kenya, Tanzania and Uganda. Those countries tried to agree on that 20 years ago, but they failed. They are now close to making that happen finally. That is a good example of some of the steps that developing countries can take to help themselves, but the hon. Gentleman is right to suggest that there is recognition that, to make progress, the EU and the US must offer more on three main elements of agricultural negotiations: first, market access; secondly, an end date for export subsidies; and, thirdly, a substantial reduction of trade-distorting domestic subsidies.
	Many developing countries have a comparative advantage in agricultural exports, yet, as we have heard, the developed world uses taxpayers' money to block that advantage. We therefore continue to take steps to promote further agricultural reforms to benefit the world's poor, including a reform of the EU sugar and cotton regimes. The hon. Member for Buckingham referred to cotton, and I shall take a moment to address that very issue. He clearly set out why the west African cotton producers face unfair competition.
	We need to find a solution to trade-distorting cotton subsidies, as part of the negotiations on agriculture, but there is a need to move swiftly on to consider what can be done to secure the livelihoods of thousands of west African cotton producers, who would be highly competitive on world markets if it were not for EU and US subsidies. They need our help now and until subsidies that lead to over-production are phased out. Their plight is one of the starkest examples of unfair trade rules. In the US, cotton producers received nearly $4 billion in assistance in 2001–02. That is more than the entire gross domestic product of Benin—to which the hon. Gentleman referred— where the cotton industry, which is now in crisis, accounts for 85 per cent. of exports.
	West African states that have followed the prescriptions of the World Bank and IMF and ended all subsidies to producers now find that they have liberalised into a highly distorted market and are paying the price. Unless we make progress, we risk undermining their confidence in the interests of liberalisation and their faith in the WTO. The US and the EU must take steps to resolve that issue. The Government are working to get the EU to agree to significant decoupling, and I discussed that with Commissioner Lamy when I was in Brussels recently. The European Commission has now made a proposal to EU member states, but we need to go further.
	The same is true of sugar, but in the interests of time—other hon. Members wish to speak—I wish to get on to the third issue: the need for WTO agreement to take account of the specific needs of developing countries, which are at different levels of development. Special and differential treatment is the development jargon used to describe that issue, but it must be an integral part of the negotiations, so that poorer WTO members can implement trade reforms at a pace that enables them to exploit the benefits of trade liberalisation. My hon. Friend the Member for Morley and Rothwell (Mr. Challen) referred to that point in his earlier intervention, and if he wishes to intervene now, I shall give way to him.

Colin Challen: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way. The hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) made clear his philosophical attachment to capitalism. I shall not necessarily ask my right hon. Friend to replicate that, unless he wishes to do so, but I ask him to consider the role of the City and financial institutions in developing fair trade. When we go to coffee or cocoa growers and say, "You must grow this cash crop to sell to us", we end up with a glut and they end up with very little income. As has been said, they receive 4 per cent. of the price. Should we have floors to guarantee prices? Should we ask financial institutions to contribute to the process?

Hilary Benn: My hon. Friend makes an important point about commodities. I am afraid that all those devices to which he draws attention have been tried in recent years to deal with the problem of low coffee prices, but the fundamental difficulty is one of over-supply. One of the reasons for that is that there has been a big, new entrant into the market, Vietnam, which has been spectacularly successful in reducing poverty, but there is too much coffee in the system as a consequence, thus depressing the price.
	We may all be travelling in the same direction, but different countries are able to travel at different speeds. We must take account of their interests.
	Part of what we can do over the next 12 months to prepare the ground for further progress on the world trade talks is to work with Governments of developing countries so that they can think through the consequences of the changes that might be made. The money that the Department for International Development gives for trade-related capacity building means that we can work with trade Ministries to provide advice and support to help countries to think through what the changes might mean for them, which is a practical contribution. However, I must say that the trade Ministers whom I have met were extremely capable and able to work out what was in their interests.
	We are just over a decade away from 2015, which is the year when we will be judged and we will judge ourselves on the progress that we have made on helping to lift our fellow citizens out of poverty. We all have the responsibility to ensure that the fine words and commitments that we utter turn not into distant promises but into results. We need to reduce the number of people who live in absolute poverty and ensure that fewer children die before they reach their fifth birthday of diseases that we know we have the means to treat, although those means are lacked in the communities in which they live. We should enable more children to have a teacher, a classroom, a desk and a textbook and to go to school—130 million children in the world currently do not go to school.
	Achieving those goals will require us to make progress on not only trade, but aid, conflict, debt, good governance, human rights and the environment. If we get things right and pull the challenge off, 2005 can become a year not of disillusion, but of promise. I hope that it will be a moment that we can look back on as a time when the development movement, the development argument and the development idea truly came of age. I hope that it will be a year in which the people in the community in Ethiopia whom I visited three weeks ago will come to know that the world did not visit them only to look and see, and that we went away, learned, and did something to try to improve their lives.

Tom Brake: I congratulate the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) on securing the debate, which is important at the beginning of fair trade week. I agree that there is a degree of consensus in the House on the matter. Through his oratory, he almost—but not quite—lulled me into thinking that I did not need to highlight some of the problems that he faces in his role—the Secretary of State referred to those problems. However, it is instructive to consider the Conservative party's record, if only to appreciate how much more needs to be done.
	The Secretary of State said that the percentage of our gross national income spent on international aid halved during the period of Conservative government. The hon. Member for Buckingham says that the issue is less about the international development aid budget than about trade, but there are still problems—indeed, he highlighted those himself. Over the past two decades, the percentage of total world trade enjoyed by the least developed countries has shrunk by nearly 50 per cent., so no significant improvements have been made in the international aid budget or the situation of those countries over the past 20 years.

John Bercow: For the avoidance of doubt, let me tell the hon. Gentleman that overseas aid, including technical assistance, capacity building, the provision of medicines and the establishment of communication networks, is incredibly important, as is the proper recognition of the prerequisite of property rights as a basis for successful free-trade economies. I am simply arguing today about trade, but other things are important, too.

Tom Brake: Other things are important, but so is the international development aid budget.
	In the spirit of consensus, we will support the motion. Broadly speaking, we are comfortable with its wording. However, it might be worth pointing out slight differences between the motion and what the Trade Justice Movement says. The motion says that the
	"House shares the concern of the Trade Justice Movement about the plight of the poorest people in the world, and congratulates the Movement on bringing their conditions to the attention of the public".
	It goes on to say that the House
	"believes that trade liberalisation and increased international trade offer the best hope of alleviating poverty".
	It is worth pointing out that the Trade Justice Movement's website calls on world leaders to stop
	"forcing . . . countries to open their markets and champion their rights to manage their own economies."
	Thus the motion and the TJM put a different emphasis on international trade.
	It is appropriate to consider the new initiatives that the hon. Member for Buckingham has brought to the table. I listened carefully to his speech but was unable to identify any new proposals in it. I had expected him to talk about the advocacy fund to which the Leader of the Opposition referred on Monday. That appeared to have been the announcement of the day—the summary on the Conservative website suggested that it was the single new proposal. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the fund is not a new proposal because the idea has been around for six months or more.

John Bercow: It is always a pleasure to joust with the hon. Gentleman, but he is on thin ice here. Of course I endorse and regularly promote the arguments for an advocacy fund, as my right hon. and learned Friend eloquently did in his speech to the Conservative party's trade justice forum on Monday morning. That was not the only feature of his speech, nor was it the main feature, and it did not need to feature in my speech today. It is important, but it is part of a picture, and I wanted to develop other parts of the picture today. I should not have thought that that was terribly controversial.

Tom Brake: I understand that point. I referred to the advocacy fund only because it seemed to be the only concrete proposal that was launched—or re-announced—on Monday, but reference was not made today to the fund or to any new concrete proposals that a Conservative Government, if elected, would put in place.
	There are significant contradictions in Conservative party policy. The hon. Gentleman advocated development in India, yet on the Conservative website the shadow trade Minister is critical of the fact that certain jobs have gone to India. I do not want to be misquoted outside the Chamber, so I am not saying that the loss of British jobs is a good thing—clearly, it is not. However, a logical consequence of the reduction of trade barriers is that jobs will go to India rather than remaining in the UK.

James Arbuthnot: The hon. Gentleman needs a bit of an explanation, given the way in which he misdescribes our policy. We suggest that if the Government regulated a little less in this country, companies might not be forced to send their jobs overseas. We have no objection whatever to jobs being done in India that can be done much better there.

Tom Brake: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that clarification, but he should perhaps read the website to find out precisely what the shadow Trade Secretary was saying—

John Bercow: He is the shadow Trade Secretary!

Tom Brake: Sorry, I should have said the shadow industry Minister—there is a slight difference. The right hon. Member for North-East Hampshire (Mr. Arbuthnot) should refer to what his colleague the shadow industry Minister said on the subject.
	We understand that the question of whether a future Conservative Government would freeze the international development budget will be addressed along with the consideration of other budgets. If a decision has not been taken, it is worth outlining the financial consequences of such a freeze. According to the House of Commons Library, if the freeze were to be applied at the 2004–05 level, the financial consequences would be about £750 million—a significant sum, which I hope the hon. Member for Buckingham will quote in arguments with his right hon. and hon. Friends to safeguard as far as he can the international development budget. In view of the announcements about a possible freeze, I thought that the Secretary of State would be rubbing his hands in glee and salivating at the prospect of taking on the hon. Gentleman, but the right hon. Gentleman is a different character from the Secretary of State for Defence and has not taken the opportunity offered by this debate to launch into the proposals.
	The Government have lots of which to be proud—I am happy to put that on the record. Breaking the link between trade and aid was entirely appropriate, as is the focus on the poorest countries. The general trend in the proportion of gross national income contributed is going in the right direction—although the Secretary of State will be aware of the blip that occurred in the last year for which figures are available, when, regrettably, that trend went in the wrong direction.
	There are a couple of issues on which our agreement is less secure and our paths diverge, including the Commission for Africa and the prospect of the international finance facility delivering the goods—the £50 billion. I hope that the Minister who responds to the debate can update us on who is backing the IFF. What happens if, for example, countries cannot deliver on the commitments they made or provide the international development budget that they had intended to provide? What happens in the event of another shock like HIV/AIDS or some other significant occurrence that causes additional funds to be required? Is there not a risk that the available funds will have been earmarked and further funds will not be forthcoming?
	On the Commission for Africa, I can do nothing better than quote the organisers of a small non-governmental organisation, who ask whether we need "another talking-shop." Bob Geldof has said that that is not what the commission will be, and it is not what the Secretary of State wants it to be, but the jury is out on what the commission can achieve. The announcement has been made, but the commission's terms of reference do not mention—at least, the summarised version does not; the detailed documentation might say more—the issue that I raised with the Prime Minister earlier today: the role that UK arms sales to African countries involved in violent regional conflict play in international development terms. The Prime Minister has said on the record, without caveat, that we prevent small arms sales to Africa. Clearly, that is not the case. I would like the Minister to comment on that and say whether the commission will be able to examine the matter.

Tony Baldry: Surely it is extremely good news that during Britain's chairmanship of the G8 we will again focus on Africa and return to the war on poverty, having been for so long preoccupied with the fight against terrorism. Should not the Liberal Democrats support that aspect of our presidency of the G8, which we will hopefully follow up during our presidency of the European Union?

Tom Brake: I hear what the hon. Gentleman says, but I question whether the Commission for Africa offers any added value. The Secretary of State and the Prime Minister have said that international development will be a priority for the G8 and EU presidencies, but we shall see. I am open-minded and willing to wait for what the commission produces, but I am not yet convinced that it will deliver the goods.
	I hope that the Secretary of State will be able to answer one question about the membership of the commission. The Prime Minister of Ethiopia is to be a member of the commission, and I hope that that will provide a stronger focus on the Ethiopia-Eritrea issue—or at least that sight will not be lost of that important matter. On Saturday, I had a meeting with representatives of the Eritrean community, who are concerned about the stance adopted by the Ethiopian Government in respect of the boundary commission. The Eritreans consider the rulings to be final and binding. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will say whether he thinks that Ethiopia is breaking the agreement and whether the Commission for Africa offers an opportunity either to examine the issue, or to raise it with the Prime Minister of Ethiopia.
	It is interesting to note that the summary of the commission's terms of reference makes no mention of agriculture. I am sure that the Secretary of State will be able to confirm that that will be a significant aspect of the task that the commission is to perform.
	The Liberal Democrats believe that free trade needs to be balanced with wider public needs, such as a cleaner environment, civil liberties, protection of local cultures and so on. We accept entirely that the international trade system is stacked against the poorest countries.

Jeremy Corbyn: Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the huge concern and, indeed, the deep anger felt in many African countries when trade agreements are reached that force African Governments to privatise public services and utilities and to close many important public services, all in the interests of building an open free trade system, which then becomes easy picking for powerful western-owned privatised utility companies, some of which started life in this country when the Tory Government privatised the utilities?

Tom Brake: Yes, I am well aware of those issues, although I suspect that I shall not have time to address them in my speech. The hon. Gentleman has made a strong point to which I am sure the Secretary of State will respond. Better regulation of corporate behaviour is clearly needed—for example, regulation to prevent transnational corporations from exploiting individuals, countries or resources. Perhaps transnational corporations should be made accountable here in developed countries for their activities in developing countries.
	The collapse of the Doha round could be seen as a disaster, but I think that it may simply have been a natural adjustment of the various lobbies at work in the World Trade Organisation. There is the potential to reform the WTO to take account of the different interests. I hope that the Minister who winds up the debate will say how it might be possible to represent both groups such as the G20, which contains strong exporters of agricultural products, and developing countries that are net food importers and would be heavily hit by policies that the G20 countries support. The Government must consider how the different preferences can be reconciled, but the developing countries must state in more detail what they want to get out of the WTO. What they do not want from it is clear; what they do want is much less clear.
	A number of hon. Members have referred to agricultural subsidies, which are key. I sent out a number of e-mails asking people what they would discuss if they were participating in this debate. Someone said, "Agricultural subsidies, agricultural subsidies, agricultural subsidies", which is less succinct than "Education, education, education", but it gets across the message that agricultural subsidies are key.
	To enable other hon. Members to speak, I shall conclude by saying that the debate is less confrontational and more reflective because of the general consensus on the important issues. That should not disguise the fact that the issues are a matter of life and, regrettably, death for people in developing countries. Developing countries do not want compassion, and I have yet to be convinced that they want commissions. They want concrete commitments—indeed, their survival depends on them. If the Secretary of State for International Development secures such commitments when the UK holds the presidencies of the EU and G8, people in developing countries will hold him in high esteem. If he does not do so, the despair in developing countries can only deepen.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Six hon. Members indicated earlier that they want to speak in the debate, and I hope that the length of hon. Members' speeches will reflect that.

Huw Irranca-Davies: I shall restrict the length of my speech.
	I welcome this timely debate. Whether the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) or the shadow Cabinet secured it, it shows that the House keeps a serious watch on these matters. We all focus on our constituencies and on domestic matters, but what is happening overseas also concerns us greatly. If we can keep the issue on the agenda, we will do ourselves a lot of good—I shall consider that point in a moment.
	I welcome the general mood expressed by both Opposition spokesmen, the hon. Members for Buckingham and for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake). There is general agreement on the way forward, but differences on some of the detail. I want to give the hon. Member for Buckingham an opportunity to pick up on a point that I know he did not intend to make. When we debated this issue one year ago, a Conservative Member made a speech that seemed to advocate old-style, free market economics—unfettered trade, bringing down the barriers and letting all hell loose. I am sure that the hon. Member for Buckingham does not advocate that. Indeed, I saw him nodding when we discussed special and differential treatment as we open up trade. I would welcome an intervention from him because it would do him credit to clarify that point.

John Bercow: I am happy to provide the hon. Gentleman with the reassurance that he seeks. First, special and differential treatment is important. One can argue the toss about how it works, but the need for it has been established. Secondly, we do not live in utopia, and no such destination is likely. We must work in a practical way with gradual liberalisation in the promotion of free trade and recognise that different countries are in different situations and therefore necessarily start from different positions. We must have a clear target and an end date for some of those reforms.

Huw Irranca-Davies: The hon. Gentleman's clarification gives us a good basis from which to move forward with, as far as possible, cross-party consensus.
	I want to focus on why we should support the aims of the Trade Justice Movement, the Fairtrade Foundation, which is supporting many events in my constituency over the next fortnight, and the Government. Opposition Members have recognised that the Government are undoubtedly trying to exert pressure in the right places. Although we cannot secure everything that we want—the reform of the common agricultural policy or of World Trade Organisation agreements—the impetus towards satisfying the needs of developing countries is firmly entrenched within the Government's credentials. The more support that Back Benchers and non-governmental agencies provide, the better, particularly as we move into the next round of talks.

Jeremy Corbyn: Does my hon. Friend think that we should also put considerable pressure on the United States because of its food-dumping policies? Those policies are, in effect, a subsidy for the farming lobby in the United States. They destroy agriculture in the developing world and lead to poverty, shantytowns and mis-development, which we all dislike.

Huw Irranca-Davies: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. We also have a lot to do within the European Union. The hon. Member for Buckingham made the point that we cannot aim at utopia, but we must keep pushing at the problem. As Oscar Wilde once said, there is no point in having a map without utopia marked on it. We must move towards utopia, while recognising that we will not get there tomorrow.
	Why is trade justice good for us? It is different from the feel-good factor that we get from putting a donation into a charity box; in fact, it is not charity at all. It is good for us because it will put money back into our pockets, if we can do it correctly. Hon. Members have mentioned the £45 billion of CAP funding that we put into the European Union. However, the position is worse than that because, as fellow Europeans, we spend about £50 billion over and above the odds to pay for subsidised products, and we are doing ourselves down. If we can develop effective trade liberalisation that works to the benefit of developing countries and ourselves, and if we can work to bring down barriers in the US and Europe, we will put money back into our pockets, and most importantly back into the pockets of some of the poorest people in my constituency. There is a strong argument to be made.

Kelvin Hopkins: To reinforce my hon. Friend's point, it has recently become obvious that every single region of Britain is a net contributor to the European budget simply because of the operation of the CAP. I have made the point to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs that we are well placed to call for the abolition of the CAP and its replacement by different forms of agricultural subsidy.

Huw Irranca-Davies: The point is well made. A typical, four-person household spends about £1,000 more than it should every year on the CAP. Forget about council tax reform and the balance of funding review; households are needlessly spending £1,000 a year. We must move away from the archaic CAP funding formula.
	A point was made earlier in the debate about capitalism, but I will not get into ideological warfare.

Andrew Love: Oh, why not?

Huw Irranca-Davies: I will not be tempted down that route. A prime foundation of socialist movements is socialism not only on one's doorstep but internationally, which relates to my next point on intra-generational equity. Rising prosperity in this country is not good enough. In November, the Joseph Rowntree Foundation independently pointed out how many people we are lifting out of poverty—there is much more to do—but we must also lift people out of poverty on a worldwide basis.

John Bercow: I respect the hon. Gentleman, and wait with bated breath and with beads of sweat upon my brow for his views on intra-generational equity. In all politeness and sincerity, I put it to him that the position is, as Sir Robert Peel once said, that the vice of capitalism is its unequal distribution of blessings; the virtue of socialism is its equal distribution of misery.

Huw Irranca-Davies: Very well put. I am pleased to see that we have a measure of agreement. We cannot have unfettered capitalism, and we need controlled measures to avoid breakdowns in markets, which result in abject poverty.
	I will not go into the realm of intra-generational equity, although I lectured on the subject for six years. If we were to reduce barriers and do away with distorting subsidies, as much as £620 billion—the conservative figure is £250 billion—would be released into the world economy. At least half of that would go directly to developing nations, if it were done in the right way. It has already been said that 1.2 billion people in the poorest parts of the world live on less than $2 a day, which is lower than the subsidy per capita for a single European cow. There were disappointments at Cancun but hopefully, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said, that will give us the energy to proceed with stronger resolve. However, without a doubt, Cancun showed that we need to strengthen the voice of developing nations. That started to happen at Cancun and, in response to people who say that liberalisation will tear developing countries apart, let me say that I believe that we need to ensure that those countries have a voice at the seats of power, not only in the WTO but in other worldwide non-governmental agencies. The Government share that aspiration, and we must work to make that happen.
	Many church groups, such as the Catholic Fund for Overseas Development and Christian Aid, have been involved in the movement for trade justice. The summary that Christian Aid provided for today's debate says that it
	"supports the reform of EU agriculture subsidies and the reduction of trade barriers to give poor countries a fair deal".
	However, it goes on to say that the reform of those subsidies and
	"the reduction of trade barriers . . . should not be granted in exchange for far-reaching liberalisation in developing countries themselves. In particular the EC should endorse the rights of developing countries to protect their poor farmers from unfair competition."
	I should be interested to hear how the Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, South (Nigel Griffiths), defines special and differential treatment, because the history of countries that have developed rapidly and enjoyed long-term prosperity is that in the early stages they needed appropriate measures to prevent all hell from breaking loose in free trade.
	Trade justice is good for the world, international agencies and Governments. If we can make a success of the next round of talks, that will dramatically improve our relations with developing nations. There were disappointments after Cancun, but the members of the G90 are starting to flex their muscles and assert themselves. As far as possible, we must force the pace of CAP reform and discussions with the Americans on their own trade barriers and tariffs. I should be grateful if the Minister would explain his thinking on the so-called Singapore issues, particularly the removal of investment and competition from the agenda, before he goes into the next round of talks.
	I urge the House, people listening to our debate, and those who marched to Parliament last year to crack on with the trade justice agenda, and to ignore the detractors, many of whom will point to the failure of talks. We are moving forward and doing the right things. We should be proud of what we have achieved so far, but should recognise that it is not enough. The Government amendment urges the European Union to make further progress on CAP reform on cotton, sugar, tobacco and olive oil, and takes note of the £160 million that the Government have allocated to essential trade-related capacity building in developing countries since 1998. The aid budget, which I mentioned earlier, will, in the case of Africa, rise to over £1 billion by 2005. We should be proud of those achievements and of the efforts of many people up and down the country. Members of the Trade Justice Movement are reasonable, responsible, well informed and, as we saw last year, well behaved in their protests. I pay particular tribute to the branch of the Trade Justice Movement in my constituency. Its members are holding a coffee morning on Friday—I cannot attend, but my sentiments are with them.

John Gummer: There is considerable common ground on these issues among Members on both sides of the House. I remind the House of my entry in the Register, because much of the work that I do outside the House is to try to help companies behave better and more effectively in developing countries. We have accepted that there is a common view, and I do not have to repeat my long-term support for trade justice. However, I urge the House to pay attention to the problems that we have to face. I am sorry that the Government do not agree with our motion, but their amendment has the advantage of reminding us of some of those problems. As the Secretary of State has said, the developing countries are not an amorphous mass dealing with the same issues and concerns. They have a great need to trade among themselves but must recognise that some ways of liberalising trade and getting rid of distortions can do huge harm.
	I shall use the example of sugar, which the Secretary of State discussed. Perhaps we should always talk about sugar rather than cotton, because we do not grow cotton, so it may appear that we are pointing the finger at those who do. We do grow large amounts of sugar, which is an important part of crop rotation in constituencies such as mine. We are therefore not making a vague argument about the need to get rid of a dreadful system to help people who manifestly need help; we are talking about changing fundamentally the way in which most of the east of England farms, so it is not surprising that there are considerable concerns. I am certain that we have to take action, but I am less certain that the Government have a plan for helping the European Union to find a solution.
	It is not only our own farmers who are affected. We do not want to give up our markets to countries that are better producers and in greater need, only to find that they are almost all taken by Australia and very large producers in Brazil. Countries such as Mozambique and Togo would lose the markets that they currently enjoy under preferential treatment. I do not pretend to have a simple answer but, if they are to be effective in the EU, the Government must present the House and the public with proposals for change in the EU. Only then will we begin to prepare our own people and the rest of Europe for the considerable alterations that are necessary.
	Problems arise not just from the bad things in the EU but from good ones. I agree with the Secretary of State that we are loth to say how much has been done. We should acknowledge that even at Cancun the EU made a clear commitment to considerable reform. However, the United States was unable to make any such commitment. Some of my friends throw around the term "Atlanticist" as if it were opposed to "European", but the two concepts are necessarily part of the same proper view of the world. Good Atlanticists ought to be prepared to tell the United States, quite honourably, that its position on the Farm Bill is intolerable, intolerant and unacceptable. I was at Cancun when the Americans told the peoples of the world that there were reducing subsidies for its farmers—not existing subsidies, but those that would be in place after the Farm Bill was passed. The United States would still subsidise its farmers more than the European Union does its. In effect, that is asking the European Union to repeat what happened at the Uruguay round by doing considerably more than the United States, which means that some markets will go not to those whom we had hoped to help, but to the rich, subsidised producers of north America. That cannot be acceptable. The Government must speak out clearly—politely, of course—to say that that is not the basis for a development round and that we cannot recover Cancun until there is a real willingness on the part of the United States to move on the issue.

Kelvin Hopkins: There are two components to the bad behaviour of the rich in relation to agricultural products: one part is to subsidise their own production for their own use, and the other is to export and dump surpluses on world markets at ridiculously low prices. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that if we could get rid of dumping in the first instance, that might be a step forward?

John Gummer: The two issues are intertwined. A country with heavily subsidised products does not need to use dumping techniques to undermine products that are not subsidised, even in home markets, as in the case of European-produced rapeseed oil that competes with coconut oil in the markets of west Africa. The two issues are so closely combined that they must be dealt with together.
	The European Union has gone thus far but must go further. The Government must provide greater clarity on the next steps in the EU, which I hope will take place soon. The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has negotiated extremely effectively the results that have been achieved so far, and I pay tribute to her for that, but one effect of her reforms is that many British farmers will have to cope with significant reductions in their incomes. I say to the hon. Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies) that the time for offensively attacking the common agricultural policy has passed. CAP reform will make it evident to many people in Britain just how tough the movement from subsidy to non-subsidy will be for agricultural areas. A great deal of explanation will be required by people such as hon. Members who are speaking in this debate and who, because we are committed to the developing countries and to the success of the European Union, are determined to make the necessary changes. During the 10 years of change, we will have to be there, on the front line, among the people who will be significantly disadvantaged.

Chris Bryant: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

John Gummer: I shall carry on, because I should sit down in about two minutes.
	The next issue to be addressed—I hope that it will be done carefully—is the way in which we deal with the governance of the countries that we seek to help. I agree with the Secretary of State's presentation of the Singapore issues. Our priority is to secure the changes that make the development round move forward, and if that blockage is so great, it is perhaps not worth fighting for those principles. Multilateral terms for carrying out investment are very important to developing countries in a world where the bilateral terms dictated by the United States or the European Union are often unfair. It may be better, although the developing nations may find it difficult, to have minimum arrangements of some kind—I hope that we can. If, however, we have to proceed without them, we must pay much more attention to the need for the benefits of freer trade and lower subsidies to reach the peoples of the developing countries instead of being stopped at the gates. That is where governance, the battle against corruption and the determination to ensure openness and transparency are important. I hope that the Minister will recognise that those issues are of huge importance if ordinary people in developing countries are to benefit from the changes.
	My final point concerns fish. I am chairman of the Marine Stewardship Council, which seeks to ensure that fish production becomes sustainable. Tomorrow, we shall celebrate that cause at a gala that will be opened by the Prince of Wales. We are raising money to help poor communities to ensure that their fisheries are sustainable and thereby derive benefit from the markets in the rich world without destroying their own fish stocks. We need to recognise that the rich always win: if there is a shortage of something, the rich get what there is. In relation to fish, stocks of which have been increasingly depleted through pollution and, largely, greed, it is not the rich who go short, but the poor. The rich reach out ever further to buy other people's fish stocks, while the huge proportion of the world's poor who depend on fish for their protein will lose it in order that we have it in our shops.
	Because it is Fairtrade fortnight, I suggest that we should add to fair trade the use of other mechanisms, of which the MSC is one, to remind people that when they buy products they should do it to the advantage, not disadvantage, of those who produce them. I hope that the Minister will use his position to bring considerable pressure to bear on the European Union to change its arrangements for agreeing fishery deals with poor countries in Africa. Many of those deals are not sufficiently policed, which allows rich nations to take more from the seas than is safe for next year's harvest. That situation could be improved if we in Britain were prepared to take such steps and to press the European Union to do likewise.
	We are agreed on the essential need for urgent action, and the time has come for us to be honest about how difficult that action can be. Perhaps we can discuss it in a spirit of cross-party co-operation, unlike the Liberal party spokesman, the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake), who spoiled the debate by seeking to find division. The real issues are very difficult, and it is in recognising that that we should find the best kind of bipartisanship.
	We need to move forward in a way that is not disruptive to the poor nations that lag behind the majority or to the rich nations, many of whose members are poor and have benefited from subsidies, and will need to be helped to move into the new world. I hope that the House will see this debate as the beginning of a rather different approach to the way in which we deal with the world's greatest problem: the ability to live together—rich and poor, north and south, European and American—in a world in which we increasingly have to act interdependently or perish.

Tony Baldry: The Select Committee on International Development has published two reports, which I commend to colleagues. One was published before and the other after Cancun. Both the Secretary of State for International Development and the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry gave evidence. We were also fortunate in having a debate in Westminster Hall and I do not intend to repeat its contents or those of the reports, which, I hope, colleagues will read.
	I want to make three brief points. First, we shall not make progress if nations approach the matter as a mercantilist exercise. The other day, several members of the Select Committee met a trade Minister of a fellow European Union country. I shall not embarrass the country by naming the person, but we were discussing the Singapore issues and that Minister asked, "What are we going to get in return for making concessions on the Singapore issues?" When a mature, fellow EU state takes the purely mercantilist approach that if we take the Singapore issues off the table, the developing countries must make some concession in exchange, it makes one fear that we shall never make progress. As my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) said, the world has to focus on how to make the Doha development round a proper development round, not simply on who can make the greatest gains and who can extract the greatest concessions.
	Secondly, I do not believe that there is any disagreement in the House on the aspects of the second report that dealt with the common agricultural policy. The Select Committee comprises 11 members who represent the three main political parties and its report was unanimous. The Government's response to that post-Cancun report and the various boxes on agriculture shows that there is no disagreement. However, Commissioner Fischler's comments to the European Parliament Development Committee a few weeks ago show that there is clearly some difference between the House's view and that of Commissioner Fischler. He clearly feels that EU support that is anything other than direct agricultural support should not be included in the equation.
	We must work out a way in which to engage with other Parliaments in Europe; otherwise, we shall continue to hold debates among ourselves and agree a view, but without influencing other Parliaments. I hope that the Conservative party will continue to remain engaged with centre-right parties, such as the Christian Democrats, in Europe because it gives us an opportunity to influence parliamentary colleagues in those parties. Many represent farming constituencies, and we need to engage them in discussions on the CAP. We must work out a way in which to do that.
	We must also work out a way of engaging the United States Congress. How do we engage our fellow parliamentarians there? Sadly, few Members of Congress came to Cancun and it was not therefore possible to engage them in debate. Some non-governmental organisations, such as the Catholic Fund for Overseas Development, have been trying to work with, for example, Roman Catholic Congressmen, but parliamentarians too must somehow work with Congressmen; otherwise we shall hold the debate only among ourselves. We need to reach out.
	Thirdly, statistics show that wealth in developing countries is considerably enhanced if we improve the trade position. However, we must accept that even enhancing trade will not necessarily solve every developing country's problems. Last week, I was in Sierra Leone. The Secretary of State will be there next week for the opening of the special court. I visited a part of the country called Bonthe, which used to be a rice-exporting area, where previous Governments planted palm oil plantations. United Kingdom research into specific types of coconut led to coconut plantations being based there. The area also exported piassava, which goes into brooms. Its tragedy is that the country now imports rice, the palm oil plantations are going to rack and ruin and the piassava market has disappeared. Sierra Leone is now a net importer of foodstuffs. I therefore welcome the Government's consultation paper on aid to agriculture. The Secretary of State has heard me banging on about the subject, and I make no apology for doing that again.
	It is good news that the Department has produced a consultation paper on what more can be done about aid to agriculture. I spent days in Bonthe examining the dereliction there. People there had become so poor and existed at such a subsistence level that they did not have the wherewithal to buy the machinery to start growing rice again. They had lost contact with the way in which to establish markets in Loughborough, where broom makers require piassava. They did not have the ability to work out how to get the technology to develop palm oil. That cannot necessarily be done by the state because, in the past, it has often led to corruption. However, those communities must somehow be helped, and not only by the World Trade Organisation, before they can even begin to think about exporting or gaining access to markets. They must first be able to feed themselves. It is a tragedy that the cost of rice in Freetown is higher than it has ever been. It is beyond the means of many people simply to buy rice.
	Whatever we do here about trade justice is brilliant but more must be done to help the poorest countries in the world to attain the bottom level to enable them to trade at all.

Alistair Burt: I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) for tabling the motion. He builds on the excellent work of his two immediate predecessors, my hon. Friends the Members for South-West Devon (Mr. Streeter) and for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman), who over the years have built a sharp and compassionate platform for Conservative party policy on international development.
	I want to make two brief points. First, although we concentrate on the opportunities that trade provides to help world development, I do not want to forget aid. Secondly, I want to reflect on the difficult issue of balancing market liberalisation with sensible interventionist policies to help trade grow in the countries that matter.
	It is crucial not to forget the role that aid still has to play. The motion acknowledges the work of voluntary groups and I should like to thank those people throughout the country who support voluntary aid agencies around the world. They are often unsung, and, in some cases, give their lives to working in places around the globe to make them better. They are a remarkable combination of people, who use their lives to help their neighbours, however far away. They have been political lobbyists, active on the streets and reflective in their writings, thus contributing to development theory as well as practice. They have engaged millions of others in their activities.
	I pay particular tribute, because of my personal connections, to those who work in Christian-based aid organisations. Tearfund, CAFOD, World Vision and many others have made an extraordinary contribution. Sometimes it is necessary to be reminded of how dreadful conditions are in some places and the hurdles countries have to overcome before they even reach the world stage to discuss finance and trade.
	My former researcher, Anthea, is now a regional officer for Tearfund in Burundi. Since 1993, that country has been engaged in a racially based civil war and hundreds of thousands of lives have been lost, yet the patient work of development goes on. Anthea e-mailed me yesterday. She wrote:
	"Burundians are in many ways similar to the British, it is difficult to get them to talk about the way they feel and it takes time to get to know them and to have any kind of real friendship. People never talk about the genocide, except as a historic event which they refer to as 'la crise' so the other day I was really surprised when . . . our logistics assistant told me what had happened in his family. In 1993 both his father and his brother were killed when all the male Tutsis in the commune where they lived were murdered. That year he said if you include his extended family fifty people were killed. It's hard to imagine how people deal with that kind of loss and yet one of the ways Burundian society seems to have tried to come to terms with the past is to bury it and never mention it; the genocide has become a taboo. God's healing is still very much needed before peace will become a reality.
	This month Tearfund are running two peace and reconciliation workshops, one in Bujumbura and one in Kirundo for church leaders. The aim is to encourage the church to play an integral role in the process of healing and reconciliation. Please pray that these workshops really inspire and excite church leaders and that they also go someway towards healing the rifts in the church."
	By contrast, Habitat for Humanity addresses the basic problem of poverty housing throughout the world. It is a non-profit-making, ecumenical Christian housing ministry, which aims to take poverty housing and homelessness from the world and make it an issue of raised consciousness. That organisation has built more than 150,000 homes and provided more than 750,000 people in 3,000 communities worldwide with decent, affordable shelter. I am proud to be an honorary UK patron of its work, along with Members from each of the major parties. It is a model of sensible international development. It encourages local leadership to get on board, it uses local materials and it helps people, by engaging them in what it calls "sweat equity", to gain access to affordable housing ownership in their communities. That is an example of how Christian scripture can act as a basis for professional community development, effective delivery systems and practical action in the community.
	The basic capacity building of homes and the provision of peace and reconciliation in conflict-torn areas are absolutely essential before we even consider how nations can then tackle the international crises that we seek to address through trade, and through negotiation and discussion on such matters as finance. On the reform of trade rules, I sign up unequivocally to the general view that freer trade is likely to be better for people. On balance, that is the way in which the world has worked and progressed, and there is plenty of evidence of how trade regimes that are too restrictive can cause damage. However, on the wider issue of how far that free trade is to go, the evidence suggests that the jury is still out and that there are serious differences between major players, which need to be resolved. Strong, persistent voices from those in a position to know seem to be raised determinedly against the substantial extension of unprotected, unmoderated free trade.

Kelvin Hopkins: I am interested in what the hon. Gentleman is saying. Is he aware that Joseph Stiglitz, formerly of the World Trade Organisation and a Nobel prize winner, has expressed severe doubts about trade liberalisation and WTO policies?

Alistair Burt: I think that we are in the same general area of discussion, and I am happy to develop this point for a couple more minutes.
	I raise this point because it is a matter of concern for the world's poor, and for those of us who seek to understand their position and to intervene and speak for them—that there appear to be strong differences of opinion among international financial institutions such as the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund, organisations such as the WTO, individual Governments and, by contrast, the voices of certain development agencies.
	As an example, Focus on the Global South, a regional organisation for policy research, analysis and action, which works in conjunction with the United Nations in Asia and the Pacific, produced a report in October 2003, entitled "Anti poverty or anti poor? The millennium development goals and the eradication of extreme poverty and hunger". It was critical of the World Bank, and quoted a study on structural adjustment programmes and their effects on countries across Latin America, Africa and Asia. That study found, among other things, that indiscriminate trade and financial sector liberalisation devastated local industry, especially the small and medium-sized enterprises that provided the bulk of national employment; that such trade and liberalisation undermined the viability of small farms and agricultural producers, which weakened food security and damaged the national environment; and that macro-level problems have accompanied those local-level failures, which means that the promised gains of efficiency, competition savings and revenues have not materialised.
	World Vision, in a paper that it prepared for me for this debate, says that
	"there are significant dangers for developing countries in having their policy options foreclosed by IMF and World Bank loans, conditionalities and inappropriate, restrictive WTO rules."
	It might be reasonable to assume that some who work for development agencies are not by nature well disposed toward liberal, free market economics, and they sometimes show a touching faith in state production and institutions of whose effectiveness and success there is scant evidence. However, I find that there are too many well researched, well written papers coming from people on the ground, who ought to know what is happening in practice and what the effects of various measures are, for them to be too easily dismissed.
	I ask my own Front Bench, the Secretary of State and the Minister for Small Business and Enterprise, who is replying to the debate, how we stand on that. Do the Government feel that the conflicts between the agencies and some financial institutions on the extension of free trade can be easily overcome? Is synthesis possible? Do the Government come down on one side of the line or the other?
	The very nature of the debate troubles our constituents, who want to believe what politicians tell them on this matter, but sometimes find politicians' views diametrically opposed by the churches and voluntary agencies that they wish to support, and to which they give their money and time. To put the question simply, is there a way through? Is there a synthesis of opinion, and can the difficulties that the agencies have raised, and the conflict over some free trade issues, be reconciled? I hope that I am not alone in being puzzled by that, on behalf of those who are interested in the matter. In the spirit of debate, I should genuinely be interested to find an answer.
	In conclusion, I think our constituents will be well pleased to find that on occasion, we speak collectively—with one voice—on an issue. On this issue, the day for which our constituents are waiting is the day on which, collectively, we can deliver.

Robert Walter: I should like to join other colleagues in congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) on introducing this debate on fair trade. Following what the hon. Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies) said, I can tell the House that my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham will be joining me for a Fairtrade tea in my constituency in a week or so.
	I had the honour to serve on the Select Committee on International Development for two years, under the chairmanship of my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry). Some former colleagues are present today. I served on that Committee until just before Christmas, and we produced two reports on trade and the issues surrounding the World Trade Organisation and the abortive Cancun summit. I found that preparing those reports was fascinating, if sometimes depressing. During our year of inquiry, we visited the WTO, the European Commission and the European Parliament. We took evidence in Washington from trade representatives and representatives of the Department of Agriculture, and we heard evidence from many developing countries, as well as countless NGOs.
	One point that has become clear to me from those deliberations is that Europe and the United States hold the key to the solution of this issue. Europe and the United States appear to pay lip service to that solution, but neither is prepared to undertake the reforms necessary to bring it about. The trade and agricultural policies on either side of the Atlantic ocean are blocking real progress. We heard numerous examples of that, highlighted in the report to which my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury referred: the inability of Indian dairy farmers to compete with subsidised European skimmed milk exports to the Middle East; the damage caused to the Jamaican dairy sector by the dumping of skimmed milk powder by the European Union; and the problems in the sugar industry and the cotton sector, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham and others have referred.
	I was particularly struck by the remarks of the Prime Minister of Ethiopia, in his evidence to the Committee, about the inability of Ethiopian producers to compete with subsidised US corn exports to Yemen, which is the Ethiopians' traditional market. He was cautious, although I tried to prompt him, about calling that "dumping", but we all knew what he meant. European leaders seem to have been rather pleased with themselves during the past year over their agreement to the reform of the common agricultural policy. However, that will not tackle directly the problems related to export subsidies, and it will fall far short of stopping the dumping of European Union surpluses.
	Agriculture is the key to fairer trade in both the developed and the developing world. Although it is by far and away the most distorted sector, agriculture is the most important issue for developing countries. As I hinted in my intervention on the Secretary of State, I take issue with the element of generosity and common purpose in the opening remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham to the Secretary of State. In the motion, my party urges the Government
	"both to press for the talks to restart and to publish its proposals for the reform of agricultural subsidies",
	whereas the Prime Minister's amendment refers only to urging
	"the European Union to make further progress on reforming the Common Agriculture Policy regimes for cotton, sugar, tobacco and olive oil".
	We have to go much further than that.
	In the Committee's report, we pointed out that three quarters of the world's poor live in rural areas, that 27 per cent. of developing countries' gross domestic product and export earnings comes from agriculture, and that agriculture provides 50 per cent. of employment in those countries. Its importance in the poorest countries is even greater, because it provides employment for more than 60 per cent. of the labour force and represents some 70 per cent. of their exports. The World Bank estimates that up to 70 per cent. of the gains from trade liberalisation would come from the agricultural sector, which could increase developing countries' exports by anything from $30 billion to $100 billion a year. Our report suggests that that could add an extra 1 per cent. to the GDP of Africa.
	So, removing subsidies, ending dumping and reducing barriers to trade will put an end to what one of the witnesses before the Select Committee described as a
	"catalogue of scandalous destruction of livelihoods or missed trade opportunities for developing countries".

Chris Bryant: It has been clear throughout this debate that everyone shares the hon. Gentleman's desire for change in the common agricultural policy. However, elections are coming up in Spain and Greece in the next few weeks, and both those countries are likely to return Governments with a renewed mandate for keeping—and, indeed, enhancing—the common agricultural policy. How are we to set about the political process of achieving further reform?

Robert Walter: I agree, to some extent, with the frustration that underlies the hon. Gentleman's question. This is one of the reasons why we must be firm in our united resolve, on both sides of the House, to get the point across to all our European partners that this situation cannot go on. I shall develop that argument just a little more, if I may.
	This is not just about export subsidies. The United States and the European Union have to deliver wholesale cuts on domestic subsidies as well. I do not believe that the CAP reform that has been negotiated will deliver any such change in this subsidy-dependent culture. I have been a farmer, and I have enjoyed the subsidy regime. It distorts every business decision. People used to ask me what I farmed, and I would reply, rather light-heartedly, that I farmed subsidies and kept sheep to justify them.
	I take issue slightly with my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer), in that I believe that British farmers would love to see the back of the subsidy-dependent culture that exists right across Europe. However, it is not the British farmers in my constituency who are defending the indefensible. Many of my constituents would not be prepared to give up their subsidies until their European and American cousins had done the same thing, and if I were still farming, I would feel the same. However, we have to work in a concerted way to achieve that. Any British farmer will tell us that the current system of land-use subsidies, production subsidies, export subsidies, dumping and barriers leads to us all here in the north producing far more than the market demands.
	I should like to say a few words about the reform of the common agricultural policy, because Commissioner Fischler has been referred to briefly. I shall quote from a report by the US Department of Agriculture economic research service, which concluded that US subsidies increase the level of output, even though they are meant to be production-neutral. The report states:
	"Transfers that are not commodity specific can increase the overall level of agricultural production by increasing the wealth (financial well-being) of farmers, thereby expanding agricultural investment and boosting the use of land and other inputs."

John Bercow: My hon. Friend is making a characteristically thoughtful speech. Does he not agree that the single most shocking feature of agricultural policy in the United States is that the Farm Act 2002 represents a serious regression from the position established in the 1996 Act?

Robert Walter: I agree absolutely.
	I was about to quote from Agra Europe, a well-known research body on this side of the Atlantic, which reported:
	"Overall, the new legislation is expected to increase spending on US farm support by an additional 70 per cent. or $73 billion, over the next ten years."
	Its specific criticisms of those subsidies were as follows.
	"They guarantee the US farmer a given level of income . . .
	Lower prices will mean that farmers gain a higher income than they would if market prices were higher—thus sustaining market disequilibrium . . .
	Since guaranteed income means guaranteed return on everything grown"
	irrespective of whether it is sold, and
	"Resulting increased production will flood the market and further drive down prices".
	Those new subsidies will reduce US export prices, particularly for wheat, which already forms 40 per cent. of the world's total production. That will have a depressing effect on third world prices and reduce the attractiveness of US domestic markets to developing country exporters.
	In 2002, total agricultural support in OECD countries amounted to the equivalent of 1.2 per cent. of GDP—more than $300 billion—which meant that prices were on average about 31 per cent. above world prices. In the European Union, export subsidies are explicit. In the USA, they are not always quite so clear and straightforward. None the less, they are as great, if not greater. Our Committee reported that the average external agricultural tariff around Europe is 19 per cent., and reaches a peak of 260 per cent. The average external tariff around the United States is 5 per cent., reaching a peak of 350 per cent. We are dealing here with export barriers and subsidies, import tariffs and the overall level of subsidy.
	I leave the House with a simple question. If I were a washing machine manufacturer, and each year the European Commission shared out up to Euro50 billion among all the washing machine manufactures, just to keep the factories going and for the privilege of telling all my friends that I was a washing machine manufacturer, I imagine that some of the other washing machine manufacturers in the world might get a little upset. They might use terms such as "unfair competition", or get their Governments to impose tariffs or block our washing machine exports. I guess they would. But that is exactly what we are doing in just one sector today—the agriculture sector—and the reforms we have agreed make little difference. They do not alter the basic equation. We in Europe—this is replicated in the United States—are giving our farmers nearly Euro50 billion a year, which is not available to our competitors. That is simply not fair.

Quentin Davies: The consensus that has emerged this afternoon, both in the remarks from those on the two Front Benches and in the motion and the amendment, is rather striking. It is also valuable. I suspect that the Government tabled their amendment because, like many of us, they had an automatic, instinctive partisan reaction, and felt that they ought to say something of their own in the form of a counterblast. I hope, however, that on reflection they will not divide the House. Such a decision would be a positive gesture because we can achieve more on CAP reform if there is a consensus.
	The emphasis of my remarks will differ slightly from that of some of my colleagues, although we all share the objectives involved. Human history teaches us unambiguously that international trade is a prerequisite for growth in output and wealth and for the reduction of poverty. The enormous and, at the time, unprecedented expansion of output and wealth in the 19th century was associated with the even faster growth rate of trade. When that rate began to be reduced at the end of the 19th century by protectionist measures from the continent and from the United States, the output growth rate began to fall.
	In the inter-war period, protectionism was unprecedented, at least since the 17th century, and enormous trade barriers were raised, beginning with the appalling Smoot-Hawley tariffs in the United States in the early '20s. During those 20 years, we had the most disappointing growth rates, and in the 1930s a memorable and appalling recession. Over the last 50 years, the enormous increase in wealth and well-being has been associated with an international trade growth rate many points higher than the output growth rate. That could not have been achieved without the liberalisation measures and, in particular, the creation of the European Union, as well as the international measures that started with the Kennedy round in the '60s, moving through the general agreement on tariffs and trade and now the Doha process.
	Against that background, Cancun is disappointing. At the very least, it is a serious reverse in a favourable process and we are all right to be concerned about that. When it comes to drawing lessons, we must—at the same time and by the same token—assign blame. The most popular target seems to be the EU. A lot of people in this country, for the noblest motives, like to feel that they are being more critical of themselves than of other people. Perhaps that is a good principle in one's private life, but it can sometimes lead one astray in one's political judgments.
	In Cancun, the EU made a considerable effort, which was the decision to go for decoupling last year. It involved considerable sacrifice by many politicians who depend on the farming vote. I am not always nice to the French in this Chamber, but let me say that it was positive, and rather unexpected, that the French went along with that, so they deserve credit.
	What is more, when we got to Cancun Commissioner Lamy made a number of major concessions. He gave away two of the Singapore points—those on investment and on competition. Both are sensible proposals that are much in the interests of the developing countries; I shall come to that in a moment. Nevertheless, operating tactically while also showing good will and emphasising the importance of the whole issue, he gave way.
	The Americans did nothing at all. They had done nothing beforehand to prepare for success and, so far as I can see, they did nothing when they got to Cancun to contribute to success. Their Farm Act 2002, which has been referred to several times this afternoon, was a complete disaster, as it went in the opposite direction and increased agriculture support when the EU was at least reducing ours. That was most extraordinary.
	The Americans' record in trade matters recently has been really dreadful. The sudden, arbitrary imposition of steel quotas and the tax subsidies for exporters, which are causing a trade war between us and the United States and which are a serious matter, flowed from entirely selfish, short-sighted and lobby-driven pressures on the US Administration. In so many other ways, I greatly respect and greatly support them because—other colleagues have referred to this—I am a strong Atlanticist as well as a strong and, I hope, good European.
	We have to try to consider things as dispassionately as we can in this matter, but the United States does not come out of it with any credit at all. It will not help the argument at all, nor will it help our relations with the United States, if we are anything less than frank with it about that, as I would expect, among friends and allies, the US to be with us if it had a similar problem.

Kelvin Hopkins: rose—

Quentin Davies: Because of time pressure, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me for not giving way.
	We cannot end the indictment there. I am about to say something that has not been said and I may be clashing with a consensus that I value, for which I apologise in advance. I have to say that the position taken up by the G90 at Cancun was irrational and very unhelpful. It is not sensible, as the Trade Justice Movement seems to believe, that the slogan should be, "Open up your markets, do whatever the G90 asks for and let them get on with governing their own countries in whatever way they want." That is not a realistic line to take.
	Even if we could persuade all our EU colleagues to go along with an entirely altruistic policy of making unilateral concessions without demanding anything in return, we would not persuade everyone else in the world who needs to be part of an agreement—the Japanese and the South Koreans, for example, who took a strong line on the Singapore issues at Cancun—to come along on that basis, nor would it be reasonable to expect them to do so. Human affairs are not normally conducted in such a way, so that is bad advice to give anybody. I would be sorry if it were the message that went out from the House this afternoon.
	I also have to say that it is irresponsible of us not to take an opportunity that offers to assist in the cause of good governance and rational economic policies among those poor countries whose poverty we are desperately trying to alleviate. In life, we cannot help people who will not help themselves. We all know that if 50 countries have gone backwards and become poorer in the last 20 years—that is a quarter of the countries in the world, which is an appalling statistic—that is largely because of the policies that they have adopted.
	There are classic, egregious examples of appallingly destructive economic policies, sometimes based on a lot of cloudy rhetoric about socialism, fairness and so forth, that ruined a country—Ghana under Nkrumah and Tanzania under Nyerere are the two classic examples. Perhaps I will not be quite so blunt about people who are still in power, but there are too many of them around, particularly in Africa. They are a major problem.
	With the best will in the world, I believe that we have made all the trade concessions that we want and we provide all the aid and all the development assistance that we want. We are providing $50 billion at the moment, although I know that that is not much. All that can be discounted and made as nothing by self-destructive economic policies adopted by the beneficiary—the recipient—states. So, it is absolutely right, if we are to make this effort, that we should do so alongside the countries that we hope will benefit—on a partnership basis, of course.
	We should indeed seek to exert subtle but effective leverage on the policies of those countries and try to ensure that when we are in a position to give them something that they want we use that opportunity. That is quite normal in human affairs, and is not in any sense a humiliating policy to adopt. We should seek to influence them to take a sensible and rational direction. That would be very much in the interest of the world as a whole, but particularly in the interest of their own populations, who are suffering from too much poverty.
	For all those reasons, the G90 should not escape its fair share of the blame for what happened. We should be just as blunt and just as frank with those countries, nor should we patronise them by treating them any differently from normal, adult, responsible human beings with whom we deal in life, politics, business or any other context. We should speak clearly, saying, "We want to help you. We believe that we can and there will be a great effort on our part to remove some of the subsidies, although there will be a political cost. We want to talk through what you can do. We will end up with a blueprint for a better world." That is the dialogue that we should be having.
	I have a final point to make. Somebody else should not escape a mention in the debate and a measure of the blame—Señor Luis Ernesto Derbez, the appalling chairman at Cancun, who behaved with an unbelievable lack of imagination, flexibility and competence in chairing a complicated international meeting.
	It was crazy to think that there was any chance of reaching agreement in five days. To close the whole show then—just a few hours after a critical concession had been made by Commissioner Lamy and before anyone had the chance to digest it and work out where we might go from there—was quite extraordinary. I have no idea why the chairman did that, but of course it was a completely mistaken tactical approach. He should have allowed that concession to be absorbed and seen whether some people would come back with some more.
	There is no question but that the problems that we have to deal with in this matter are far too important and far too complex for it to be responsibly expected that they can be dealt with definitively within five days; a great deal longer was necessary. When we get back to business on this one, which I hope we will as soon as possible after the American presidential election, I hope that all those lessons, and indeed many others, will be effectively learned.

John Barrett: There is clearly consensus on both sides of the House about the vast majority of issues that have been discussed this afternoon. The Government have made much progress, but while the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) made the most eloquent speech, the Secretary of State was right to raise the Conservatives' track record. The best indication of future performance is past performance—that cannot be airbrushed out of history.
	There is consensus in this place, but the public are mystified, because all that they ask is that we politicians give the poorest, the hungriest and the starving a decent trading system, so that they have a level playing field and can get a leg up and participate in trade. Trade with developing countries is occurring, and not just in agricultural products, although they are clearly the No. 1 issue. There is trade in mining, a growing trade in tourism, trade in arms, as my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake) mentioned, and trade in technology. One thing that has affected my constituency is the trade in financial services jobs, which are going to the developing world.
	Unfair barriers must be tackled. Non-tariff barriers make it difficult for products from the developing world to enter our market. It is right that we have high standards, and that we demand that the food that ends up on the supermarket shelf is of the highest standard. The knock-on effect of that, however, is that people who want to enter the food market must comply with the same standards. If we are to help the developing world, we must therefore assist those developing countries in a number of ways to enter our markets.
	The effect of trade on the environment has not been mentioned. If we trade with the developing world in timber, for instance, we must consider the effect that that has on the environment and on greenhouse gases. Clearly, there is not enough time to discuss many aspects of trade, although they have been discussed in the Chamber and in Westminster Hall a few times recently. I appreciate that the Secretary of State has always shown a great interest and has turned up for those debates.
	I have mentioned the national issues, but it is also worth mentioning and recognising local initiatives that are helping. When the Minister replies, he may mention the fair trade policy of Edinburgh university, in his constituency. Our city of Edinburgh has adopted fair trade city status. Fair trade bananas are now on display in my local Tesco, and at a village in my constituency, South Queensferry, people are signing up to participate in fair trade.
	The issue is trade justice, and a number of Members have already mentioned the injustice of EU farm subsidies and the United States Farm Bill. Europe and the United States are part of the problem, not part of the solution. I would like to see some movement on that, and given the special relationship that exists, or is supposed to exist, between the Prime Minister and the US President, it could be emphasised how important it is that they roll back some of the subsidies that they are giving their domestic producers and their exporters, which are effectively destroying markets.
	Aid and trade are also linked. As the Chairman of the Select Committee, the hon. Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry), has pointed out in the past, we must accept that in good years, when developing countries are producing a great deal of whatever agricultural product they produce, the price falls, whereas in bad years of agricultural production, we send out more aid and, once again, there is a danger that local market prices can be undermined. We must make sure that we integrate our aid and develop trade at the same time.
	A classic example of things having gone completely pear-shaped is the world coffee market. The Secretary of State and others mentioned the problems of Ethiopia. If Ethiopia is to move forward, with its growing population and huge AIDS crisis, it must develop irrigation, agricultural production, its road system and its education and health systems, all of which will work together in letting it develop as a nation and develop its trade. Coffee production is at the heart of Ethiopia's future potential. While there are new players in the market, such as Vietnam, which was mentioned earlier, one of the problems is that we are paying increased prices for coffee on our supermarket shelves, yet the world coffee price to the local farmer is dropping. On a rough calculation, a coffee farmer must produce enough coffee for 1,000 cups of coffee to be paid as much as we in the UK pay for one cup of coffee.
	As time is moving on, I want to end with what I said when we last discussed this subject:
	"Trade agreements should be developed to help the poor, to protect the environment and to be a force for positive change. If that development does not take place, we shall all suffer as we help to develop a world where the obese watch the poor starve to death on television. All that is being asked for is what is fair. We should settle for nothing else."—[Official Report, 19 June 2002; Vol. 387, c. 315.]

Ann McKechin: I welcome this debate, which is timely. I add my support for Fairtrade fortnight. I will support one or two fair trade shops in my constituency on Friday.
	I had the privilege to attend last year's WTO summit in Cancun. I want to comment on some of my observations at the conference. First, we need to stop playing the poker game when we arrive at conferences by leaving every decision to be dealt with in four days flat. The capacity of someone from a poor developing country to be able to deal with the wide-ranging and complex issues within such a short period is virtually nil. It would be of great assistance if all nations could concentrate on reaching the majority of decisions in Geneva during the course of the year in normal negotiations rather than leaving everything to the last minute.
	Language is also important, particularly within the European Union. I heard the French Trade Minister talk about the unique cultural quality of his agriculture and how he wanted to refer it to UNESCO. I heard the Italian Trade Minister talk about the unique value of Italian soil. Considering that his audience consisted of Trade Ministers from some of the poorest countries in the world, where 70 to 85 per cent. of the population are involved in subsistence farming, that must have been fairly hard to swallow. The first thing that we could therefore do is to talk about development and truly mean what we say. I give credit to the British Minister who, in complete contrast, emphasised the need for true development and the need of the poorest countries. The United States of America was not even present—despite having more than 250 people in its delegation, one would have been hard-pressed to find them in Cancun, for they spent most of their time hiding away, considering the embarrassment of having to speak to Ministers and others representing farmers in west Africa and cotton farmers who are now facing bankruptcy because of the failure of the Cancun talks.
	We also need to differentiate the needs of the G21 group, comprising countries such as India, China and Brazil, which are looking for more access to our markets, and those of the G90, which need more time spent on special and differential treatment as opposed simply to reducing barriers. Different needs exist, and we must find an agreement that will suit both sets of views and needs.
	The Singapore issues have been mentioned. Pascal Lamy left it far too late in the game to make his offer, which was one of the major problems with the Cancun debate. Trade rules are not necessarily a good basis on which to establish an investment agreement. There are different nuances, which require differentiation, not a one-size-fits-all approach. We should remember that the policies of the World Bank and International Monetary Fund already require developing countries to liberalise without any trade-off. When developing countries attend the WTO, therefore, they have already liberalised many of their markets as a result of World Bank and IMF policies, and have little to offer and negotiate with at the table. It is no wonder that developing countries feel so defensive when attending conferences of this kind.
	We need World Bank, IMF and WTO policies that recognise the fact that countries such as India and China protected their own markets before agreeing to trade liberalisation. They developed their domestic industries before allowing them to be left to the open market. We must consider how the various agencies can best work together to achieve the millennium development goals and economic growth in the world's poorest countries.
	The International Labour Organisation recently held a special commission on globalisation. One of its best recommendations was that we should concentrate not on freer regulation but on actual employment growth. That should be the test of whether we are achieving a reduction in absolute poverty.
	I hope that the Government will consider those points, and that they will form part of our discussions on progress and trade agreements in the coming year.

James Arbuthnot: This moving and rather unusual debate has featured the House at its best—with the exception, I am sorry to say, of one speech fairly near the beginning. Although it is a shame that there were only two Labour Back-Bench speeches, we have seen the House united on a subject, and in its language on that subject. The value of that lies in the fact that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) pointed out, this is one of the world's crucial issues, which affects the living or dying of millions of people.
	I congratulate the Government on the non-partisan nature of both the Secretary of State's speech and his amendment. I have no quarrel with the amendment; my only question to the Secretary of State is whether he disagrees with anything in the motion. I heard nothing in his speech that suggested that he did. I think he agrees with the motion but would have worded it slightly differently himself. In his opening remarks, he invited the House to unite in support of the amendment. I do not think we shall have an opportunity to do so, because the Conservatives will not oppose it. Indeed, that will arise only if the Secretary of State takes the step of voting down our motion—with which he agrees, so I hope he will not. My right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) said, in an extremely powerful speech, that this debate would provide an opportunity for a good deal of consensus. It can still provide that opportunity.
	As I have said, I accept the amendment, but there are points on which we need more detail. The Secretary of State
	"urges the European Union to make further progress on reforming the Common Agriculture Policy regimes".
	Of course we all do, but what is he doing to achieve that further progress? My right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal said that it was not clear to him that the Government had a plan to help the European Union make such progress, and it was not clear to me, either, from the Secretary of State's speech, welcome though it was.
	The amendment calls for action on HIV/AIDS. Yes, but once we have called for that action, what will we do to achieve something for those desperately poor countries? It calls for a successful Doha round. Of course, but the prospects do not look good at present. The Doha round is intended to finish by January next year, but given the way things are going, that will not happen. The Secretary of State referred to the millennium development goals. He said that there were targets to be achieved by 2015, and that we would be judged on them. That is right, but if we cannot even achieve a successful development round at Doha, how are we to achieve those goals by 2015? The hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Ann McKechin) made a similar point.
	The amendment says that
	"significant progress must be made to improve access for developing country exports".
	But, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal said, such things are very difficult to achieve, so we need some mechanisms through which such progress can be made. Let us consider the question of substantial reductions in trade-distorting agricultural subsidies. In a very well informed speech—as always—my hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset (Mr. Walter) said that he farms subsidies and keeps sheep to justify them. What are we actually going to do to achieve these substantial reductions in trade-distorting subsidies?
	I therefore accept the Government's amendment; all I suggest is that when the opportunity comes to oppose our motion, they fail to take it.
	Before I finish, I want briefly to discuss the Singapore issues. I welcomed what the Secretary of State said—

John Taylor: Before my right hon. Friend moves on, may I draw his attention to the compelling speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies), who seeks mechanisms that can couple the aid given to countries that deserve it with stewardship of how it is spent, the economic consequences of the use of that aid, and its effectiveness and efficiency?

James Arbuthnot: If one is allowed to refer to Lord Copper in this Chamber, I would say, "Up to a point". My hon. Friend the Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies) made a characteristically trenchant speech about the Singapore issues with which I entirely agreed. He rightly said—as, indeed, did the Secretary of State—that those issues have considerable value. There is value in reducing corruption in developing countries, and in improving free trade and public procurement. That is all to the good. We need to pursue those issues, and it is important that we do so for the developing countries themselves. But as the Secretary of State and my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry) said—I thank him, incidentally, not only for an outstanding speech but for his outstanding Select Committee work and the skill that he brings to it—that should not be done at the expense of more important and urgent issues relating to the Doha round. That is particularly true of agriculture. As the Secretary of State said, the Singapore issues should not themselves stand in the way of the Doha round, however important they are.
	Free trade is sometimes said to be in contradiction with the principle of fair trade, but both freedom and fairness are crucial values in trade, as in all other things. They must be balanced, but the trouble is that all too often, in trade as in other things, we have neither freedom nor fairness. The richest countries—the United States and the countries of the European Union—subsidise and protect their markets. Fairness is of course very important for rich countries, but for developing countries it is more than important: it is a matter of life and death—not just for individual people but for whole communities.
	I should like to draw particular attention to the moving speech of my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt), who discussed issues relating to Burundi. Freedom to trade is likewise more important to developing countries than to rich countries. Protectionism is not the answer, but it is particularly not the answer to protect rich countries, especially the United States and those of the European Union. Many of us have detected in the Democratic primaries worrying signs of protectionism arising as a positive issue in the United States election, and worrying signs of US behaviour in respect of steel tariffs. I am delighted that the US has now removed them, but I suspect that that was done more out of self-interest than anything else.
	Protectionism in the United States or in the European Union will not help the billion people in the world who live on less than a dollar a day, or the billion people in the world who have inadequate drinking water. We have the opportunity today to send out a message that this House is united in its determination to help those people and to change the world with real answers. Let us take that opportunity.

Nigel Griffiths: This debate shows the House at its best, with thoughtful points, searching questions and helpful suggestions. I am sorry that I was briefly absent from the Chamber when the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake) spoke, but I have notes from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. Doubtless the debate will get no media coverage because of that consensus.
	I want to pay tribute to Baroness Chalker of Wallasey, who has greatly enriched these debates and was most respected in this House and outside. Twenty years ago, with my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith (Mr. Lazarowicz), Alistair Grimes and Alan Sinclair, I was one of the founder members in Edinburgh of Scottish Education and Action for Development, one of the first fair trade organisations in the United Kingdom. I began a journey for justice in developed countries and the elimination of poverty, a journey that will end only when there are no more starving children, no children who do not go to school and no children who cannot get fresh water.
	I am pleased that the Department of Trade and Industry stocks fair trade items, including coffee, tea, chocolate and bananas. I hope that the House of Commons will consider following in our footsteps. At the launch of Fairtrade fortnight on Monday—the tenth anniversary of the Fairtrade Foundation—I was pleased that the Government were able to support the fortnight with almost £1 million to continue the work of ensuring that we have trade justice. I am delighted that the Co-op is doubling the stocking and sale of its own-brand fair trade items; it is showing a great lead. Finally, I am particularly grateful to my constituent Anne Howard for allowing me to help launch Fairtrade fortnight in St. Columba's church in Newington a short time ago.
	It is clear from today's debate that there are many well informed and keenly interested Members. I was grateful for the contribution from the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington, who asked quite rightly about the international finance facility. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor and other leading members of the leading world economies are taking a close interest in the World Bank and IMF spring meetings, which will cover the issue. The hon. Gentleman also mentioned the boundary commission report on Ethiopia; the Government's position is that this should be implemented fully.
	In an intervention, the hon. Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry), the distinguished Chairman of the Select Committee, gave strong support for the commission for Africa. The Prime Minister is on record about the steps that we need to take to prevent small arms sales to Africa. The hon. Gentleman also stressed the need to engage other Parliaments, particularly in Europe—a point echoed by other hon. Members—as well as the need to engage the United States of America. The hon. Member for North Dorset (Mr. Walter) spoke of his involvement in engaging the United States. It is important that the international nature of the issue is taken on board.
	The right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) made a thoughtful speech and I pay tribute to his work as chairman of the Marine Stewardship Council. He spoke of the pressing need to ensure that the EU agreements on fisheries are fair and equitable to the countries of Africa and do not become yet another opportunity for despoiling the sea stocks. I welcome the right hon. Gentleman's support for the outstanding work on the issue that was done at the end of last year in Cancun.
	The hon. Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt) also spoke with great knowledge about the need to reconcile what should not be contradictory aims of aid agencies and financial institutions. He will know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State meets all the large aid agencies regularly, and that we stress the appreciation, shared by everyone in Britain, of the £70 billion of debt relief that the heavily indebted poor countries have benefited from, thanks to both political intervention and the intervention of financial institutions.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies) spoke of one of the critical needs, which is to develop the voice of poorer and developing nations. He will share my gratitude to my right hon. Friend for ensuring that £160 million is going into capacity building, building the knowledge base, I hope from within, so that those nations are in a good position to enter the negotiating chamber well armed with the facts and with the 21st century skills that are equally needed to negotiate a fair settlement on their behalf. This is an important issue.
	The hon. Member for North Dorset stressed a theme common to all speakers, but did it particularly eloquently, in demanding reforms to the common agricultural policy. Those who were not able to be present today would do well to read the Official Report of the proceedings, including the very thoughtful and challenging comments about the British agricultural position and the realities that we have to face. If all politics were as straightforward and honest with regard to difficult issues, we would all be the better.
	The hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies) stated something that we all accept: our disappointment with Cancun. He made some challenging and critical remarks about the G90 nations. Of course, their expectations must be tailored to the realities, but we cannot expect them to move without the European Union, the United States of America and other advanced economies moving as well.
	I was grateful to the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (John Barrett) for showcasing Edinburgh and what the university, the council, and church and faith groups in our city do. I am also grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Ann McKechin) for her thoughtful contribution.
	In winding up for the Opposition, the right hon. Member for North-East Hampshire (Mr. Arbuthnot) made a number of points and put a number of fair questions. He stressed the details needed on how we are intervening with the CAP. Clearly, we want to build on our good record on textile reform, which has been very beneficial to developing countries in showing that it is possible to ensure that trade is much fairer and much better at boosting their economies.
	Flowers from Kenya are a great market, having reached £35 million from almost nothing in a few short years, because we allow those flowers into the European Union. We must both appeal to consumers and have a good and sensible approach to the agricultural sector. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs announced such an approach in January and is proceeding with it.
	We are all concerned about HIV/AIDS, and I know the right hon. Gentleman for North-East Hampshire will share my congratulations to my right hon. Friends for increasing our spending in that regard sevenfold.
	With regard to Doha, the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues will want to work with us to put forward a sensible agenda to secure a result that benefits everyone.
	It has been a pleasure and a privilege to take part in the debate. I thank all hon. Members for their valuable contributions and the spirit in which the debate took place. Would that all our proceedings were the same.

Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:—
	The House divided: Ayes 200, Noes 326.

Question accordingly negatived.
	Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 31 (Questions on amendments), and agreed to.
	Mr. Deputy Speaker forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.
	Resolved,
	That this House welcomes this debate and congratulates the Trade Justice Movement on its efforts to raise public awareness of this vital issue; reiterates the commitment made in the White Paper Eliminating World Poverty: Making Globalisation Work for the Poor to improve international trade rules; urges the European Union to make further progress on reforming the Common Agriculture Policy regimes for cotton, sugar, tobacco and olive oil; welcomes the UK's call for action on HIV/AIDS; congratulates the Government on the £160 million it has allocated to trade-related capacity building in developing countries since 1998; welcomes the fact that the UK's aid budget for Africa will rise to over £1 billion by 2005; welcomes the launch of a new initiative, the Commission for Africa, to take a fresh look at the challenges Africa faces; notes that a successful Doha Round could contribute substantially to the achievement of the Millennium Development Goals; congratulates the Government on the lead it has taken within the EU and the WTO to promote free and fair trade; believes that significant progress must be made to improve access for developing country exports to both developed and developing country markets, including through substantial reductions in trade distorting agricultural subsidies; calls on all WTO members to continue to demonstrate their commitment to the Doha Development Agenda; and underlines this House's commitment to ensuring the Doha Round produces real benefits for the poor.

Protection of Vulnerable Children

Andrew Lansley: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You will be aware that the Government's proposed amendment to the motion that is to be immediately before us refers to the publication of the Children's Bill in the other place today. That seems to mean that although it is presented in another place, it will not be available to Members of the House until 7.30 am tomorrow. In the light of references in "Erskine May" at page 387 to the fact that when Ministers of the Crown read or quote from a dispatch or other state paper not before the House, that paper
	"ought to be laid upon the Table of the House,"
	is it not all the more important that when the House is going to vote on a motion that refers to a paper, that paper should equally be laid upon the Table of the House?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I understand the point that the hon. Gentleman makes, but Ministers are responsible for the wording of the Government amendment. The issue that the hon. Gentleman raises is a matter for debate. It is not a matter of order on which the occupant of the Chair can rule.

Phil Willis: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The Secretary of State announced that the Bill would be published on 4 March. Indeed, he has made that clear to the House. Yet Ministers refer in the amendment to a Bill that is published in another place. Surely, when the Secretary of State announces that a Bill will be published on a specific day, that is what the House should expect to happen.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I do not think that I can usefully add anything to what I have already said. Those are not matters for the occupant of the Chair.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I protest most vigorously that, if the Government amendment refers to a document that presumably will be debated—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have already dealt with that point of order; I do not intend to do so again.
	I inform the House that Mr. Speaker has selected the amendment that stands in the name of the Prime Minister.

Tim Loughton: I beg to move,
	That this House notes that it is now more than 13 months since Lord Laming's Report on Victoria Climbié and that 25th February 2004 marked the fourth anniversary of her tragic death; regrets that the Government has wasted too much time before bringing forward practical measures to make vulnerable children safer despite Laming's contention that 84 of his recommendations could be implemented within six months and even now social services departments are in limbo awaiting Government recommendations in the Children's Bill; is alarmed at the Government's complete inability to clarify the position on data sharing between agencies, which is crucial to child protection measures; condemns the Government's failure to address the crisis in recruitment of child protection social workers without whom the necessary improvements will not be achievable; is gravely concerned at their response to the recent Appeal Court judgements involving children taken away from parents on questionable expert witness testimonies, which has failed to take account of potentially thousands of other miscarriages of justice in the family courts; notes the additional pressures that this is adding on already overstretched social services departments; further notes the continued failure of the Government to produce the long promised National Service Framework for Children; condemns recent moves to cut already committed grants to important Children's Fund projects working with vulnerable children; and calls upon the Government to give vulnerable children the priority they need and deserve.
	This is an important subject. I make no apology for saying that—I do so every time that we debate this subject, and it has become no less important since we used Opposition Supply day debating time to discuss it in July 2003 and since various Conservative Members instigated debates in Westminster Hall. Yet, since the Laming report was published on 28 January 2003, no Government time has been given to debate children's issues in the Chamber. Since the appointment of the Minister for Children on 13 June 2003, which we welcomed, no debate in the Chamber on any part of her brief has been instigated in Government time, despite all that the Government have issued in the light of the Laming report, including the subsequent Green Paper consultation, despite recent high-profile cases involving the discrediting of expert witness evidence provided by Sir Roy Meadow and his disciples, and despite the great upheaval among all the children's departments, which are being brought within the Minister's remit. I need not say, of course, that the subject has never been mentioned in Liberal debating time either.
	We have called this debate 13 months after Lord Laming produced his excellent report, with 108 recommendations. He said that 48 of them could be acted on in three months and a further 36 within six months. We have called this debate just over four years after the brutal death of Victor Climbié at the hands of her great aunt and her partner, which we all remember only too vividly.

Hilton Dawson: I agree absolutely with the hon. Gentleman about the importance of protecting vulnerable children. Will he explain why the Opposition completely failed to support amendments that would have protected children who come to this country from abroad and who are in danger of being made destitute under the Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants, etc.) Bill?

Tim Loughton: I do not want to intrude on the private grief between the hon. Gentleman and the Government about their legislation. I shall come to that separate subject later. I want now to deal with several subjects that relate to the broad remit of what has happened since the Laming report and various events since then.
	We all know the horrific figures for the number of children who die at the hands of their carers—an average of 80 each year, with a disgracefully low conviction rate for murder. For that reason, we particularly welcome the Government's moves to legislate to deal with the problem of the joint enterprise loophole, which has left too many murderers going free or being indicted on the lesser charge of child cruelty. However, too many children are still subjected to systematic abuse—

Hilton Dawson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Tim Loughton: I am not going to give way a second time.
	There are too many such children whom we will not know about, despite the higher profile that has been given to the subject and the excellent work that is being done, especially by many voluntary bodies.

Joan Humble: Does the hon. Gentleman acknowledge that over the months since the Laming report the Government have issued detailed guidance, especially to social services departments? That guidance is in place and is helping to protect the vulnerable children to whom he refers.

Tim Loughton: If the hon. Lady is patient, she will find that I will refer specifically to the checklist and the booklet, which form the basis of the guidance issued since 28 January 2003.

Gillian Shephard: I was interested in the point made by the hon. Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble) about advice to social services departments. Will my hon. Friend find time to refer to the role of school nurses? School nurses have a key opportunity—certainly through preventive work—to care for vulnerable children. I am not sure whether the Minister for Children's remit makes it especially easy for her to involve the NHS and school nurses in the process, and she may obviously answer that point for herself. I would, however, be interested to hear my hon. Friend's views.

Tim Loughton: My right hon. Friend makes an exceedingly good point. I have long been a great fan of what school nurses can do, but I am afraid that there are far too few of them. In all too many cases, school nurses are not doing preventative work because they are responding to cases and, often, performing the role of social workers by looking after children under protection who are not in their places. School nurses have an enormous role to play. I would like there to be many more school nurses who could spend more time on preventative work on health matters in schools and, at the same time, joining with social workers, teachers, the police and other agencies—the Government say that they want that to happen—to bring about the joined-up approach on child protection that we desperately need. My right hon. Friend's point is absolutely right.
	A less publicised problem is the life chances of children for whom the state is the parent—the 60,000 or so looked-after children, on current figures. More than half of looked-after children will leave school with no qualifications, and between a quarter and a third of rough sleepers are people who come from the care system. A quarter of the prison population come from the care system. The incidence of mental health problems among such children is much higher than the already worryingly high rate of one in 10 for the rest of the child population, and more than 30 per cent. of children in care have had no immunisations. There is a much higher proportion of looked-after children among ethnic minority populations, and they experience another raft of problems disproportionately.
	I welcome the ongoing BBC "Taking Care" season, which is doing an excellent job of bringing the plight of children in care into everyone's homes and reinforcing the message that these are ordinary children who have often been through extraordinary experiences through no fault of their own and simply need a second chance in a stable family home. I give the innovative monitoring scheme that the BBC is promoting every good wish.

Jonathan R Shaw: I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman mentions the BBC's current season. Does he agree that its portrayal of children and young people provides a realistic picture? He used the word "plight", but many such young people succeed despite the events that they have gone through. We should applaud them and provide a balanced view of children in care—it is not all bad news.

Tim Loughton: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. I have seen many of the programmes, I went to the season's launch and I had a meeting with the producers. The great thing is that the season portrays children in their everyday lives. It shows, with no holds barred, the great successes that many of them achieve and the great problems and challenges that many have to overcome. That is exactly the right way to portray things, and I think that the BBC is doing an excellent job with the season. It may be unfashionable to say it to the Government at this time, but I think that the season is broadcasting at its best.
	The issues are important, and we are determined that the House should be given a proper opportunity to debate them. We need to address several questions: first, are children safer from abuse, and ultimately death, at the hands of their carers or abusers than Victoria Climbié was four years ago?

Hilton Dawson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Tim Loughton: With respect, I would really like to make some progress. I have given way several times and I have quite a lot to say.
	The second question is: are social services departments and other agencies in a position to implement in a practical way the safeguards recommended by Lord Laming, and endorsed by the Government and the Opposition, and to bring about the sustainable improvements that we all want? The Government have so far failed to answer those questions, and the House is entitled to a full report, as are all parents who are concerned about the welfare of their children, and children who are looked after. Those questions require full answers about what practical action has been and is being taken, not just what boxes have been ticked or departmental memos sent out. I intend to focus on the practical action taken since Lord Laming's report was published; to consider the particular problems associated with information sharing, which is crucial to effective child protection; to examine the additional problems created by recent revelations from the Court of Appeal regarding the discrediting of expert witness testimony provided by proponents of Munchausen's syndrome by proxy; and, finally, to touch on the future of the Children's Fund.
	On 7 January 2004, the Minister for Children produced her response to the Health Committee report on the Victoria Climbié report. It itemised the Government response to each of the 108 Laming recommendations and subsequent action taken. That seems all very well, until one looks in detail at what action is promised. Many of the important recommendations are met with this observation:
	"In the Queen's Speech on November 26th 2003 the Queen announced that the Government would bring forward a Children Bill this Session to take forward some of the measures in the Green Paper."
	We know that, and we have been waiting quite a long time for the Bill. Most of the other recommendations are met with the response:
	"The Government will consider what mechanisms are needed to support the Minister for Children in discharging her responsibilities";
	or:
	"This is included in the checklist of good recommendations issued on publication of the report";
	or:
	"Advice is contained in the booklet 'What To Do If You're Worried A Child Is Being Abused' issued by the Minister in May 2003",
	followed by:
	"progress so far—completed".
	I think that that is wishful thinking.
	The fact that the Government are considering something, or that they have issued a checklist or a booklet to local authorities apparently means that the problem has been sorted—the box can be ticked. Recommendation 35 is:
	"Directors of social services must ensure that children who are the subject of allegations of deliberate harm are seen and spoken to within 24 hours of the allegation being"
	made. According to the booklet progress is completed; problem sorted. Recommendation 53 is:
	"When allocating a case to a social worker, the manager must ensure that the social worker is clear as to what has been allocated, what action is required and how that action will be reviewed and supervised."
	The action recorded is that it is in the checklist of good practice recommendations: progress completed; problem sorted. Recommendation 63 is:
	"Hospital social workers must always respond promptly to any referral of suspected deliberate harm to a child."
	That is in both the checklist and the booklet: progress completed; problem doubly sorted.
	The problem is that things are not that simple. Such complicated problems are not solved simply by issuing memos and ticking boxes—the panacea so beloved by the Government. The Government amendment to the motion refers to the Minister as though everything has been achieved by the appointment of a new Minister for Children. We welcomed that, but it is only the start of the journey—and a shaky start it has been at that.

Joan Humble: Earlier, I pointed out that the Government have issued guidance. Is the hon. Gentleman seriously suggesting that the Government should not have done that? The checklists consist of more than tick boxes; they place a requirement on managers to supervise properly the social workers who have the difficult task of making decisions and judgments and offering advice and guidance in respect of extremely vulnerable children. Surely the Government have done precisely what they should in issuing clear instructions to social services departments and managers and social workers at all levels.

Tim Loughton: Of course I am not saying that the Government should not have issued that guidance, and I shall discuss that later. However, that is not the important thing. The important question is: are the people there to put it into action? If they are not, the guidance is worthless.

Jim Knight: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Tim Loughton: I wish to make a little progress.
	We are told that the Children's Bill, which is due to be published today in another place, but which we shall not see until tomorrow, will propose structural changes, such as appointing a children's commissioner, a director of children's services, which may or may not be a central model, and a new inspection hierarchy. Now that we have given the Minister an opportunity to address the House, perhaps she will provide some details of the Bill. We look at the details and offer constructive scrutiny, but all that will be meaningless and all the responses to Lord Laming's 108 recommendations will be fruitless unless there are sufficient skilled professional child protection officers in social services departments and other agencies, working on the ground, at the sharp end, detecting cases of child abuse, intervening and working to prevent abuse, with the resources necessary to make meaningful interventions available to them. It is highly unlikely that that can be achieved in the cost-neutral fantasy world suggested by the Minister.

David Hinchliffe: I am saddened that the debate is becoming politically partisan, because the House is at its best when, as in the case of the Children Act 1989, we discuss the way forward. I hope that the hon. Gentleman, who was not a Member of Parliament at that time, recognises that point and I say that the 1989 Act was a credit to the Conservative Government. I started work in child protection in 1971, and I am struck by the clear parallels between the Maria Colwell case in 1971 and the Victoria Climbié case and between Lord Laming's recommendations and the recommendations of the Maria Colwell report. I do not want to make a partisan point, but I urge the hon. Gentleman to reflect on the fact that Conservative Governments were in power for a total of 21 years after the Maria Colwell case and might have addressed one or two of the points that he raises today.

Tim Loughton: I have great respect for the hon. Gentleman's expertise on this subject. Lord Laming made the point that this report must be different and must make a difference. I have already applauded many of the steps that the Government have taken, including the appointment of the Minister for Children, for which I called for a long time. If joining up relevant individuals works properly, it is welcome and I applaud the guidance that has been issued, but the test of those actions will be the results that they produce.
	People must be on the ground to put the guidance into effect, but I fear that they are not. In many cases, more people were on the ground when the hon. Gentleman was practising social work. One can have as many children's tsars as one can shake a stick at but their hegemony will be short lived if the workers are not there on the ground. Recent recruitment figures show that the number of whole-time equivalent field social workers in children's services has hardly changed over the past six years, despite the extra requirements placed on local authorities by, for example, the Adoption and Children Act 2002, which sets out requirements to provide adoption support services.
	One local authority that I visited recently told me that it had been advertising for months to find someone to head up its adoption support services and that it had received zero applications. Despite all the requirements in the 2002 Act to promote adoption, the preparation work undertaken by local authorities to respond early to some of the problems highlighted by the Climbié case and the myriad schemes that have hit social services departments, the figures suggest that there are more than 5,000 social worker vacancies, around two thirds of which are in children's posts. Those figures cover services required now, ahead of the recent legislation, but there is still a heavy reliance on temporary agency workers, who simply cannot provide the necessary continuity, particularly in complex cases.

Jonathan R Shaw: The hon. Gentleman refers to social worker posts and the work required under the 2002 Act. Do his figures take account of the many voluntary agencies that do that work for local authorities?

Tim Loughton: Indeed, I have made that point on many previous occasions and shall probably make it later. There are many different schemes involving many different people, and the biggest problem is that they tread on each other's toes. There is an awful lot of poaching from one scheme to another, including the poaching of full-time social workers who work for social services departments.
	I have not mentioned the increasing rush for early retirement by directors of social services, but 40 out of 150 social services directors in England took early retirement in the past year.

David Cameron: Further to the point made by the hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Jonathan Shaw), is my hon. Friend aware that some voluntary bodies involved with social services such as the excellent Family Nurturing Network, which is based in my constituency, are concerned that the setting up of the new heads of children's services in every social services department might make it more difficult for them to continue to provide good services to vulnerable children and families? What should the Government do to address that particular point on behalf of important voluntary bodies such as the one that I mentioned?

Tim Loughton: My hon. Friend makes an important point, and underlines the need for much greater local autonomy in the way that local authorities, working in concert with voluntary organisations, provide crucial services to vulnerable children. As I shall explain, the children's fund schemes were about to have the rug pulled from beneath their feet. Much good will and trust has been lost as a result of Government action, which might have undermined many schemes that offer extremely worthwhile activities.

Hilton Dawson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Tim Loughton: No, I will not, as I want to make progress; otherwise, there will be no opportunity for Back-Bench Members, among whom there is great enthusiasm and interest, to make speeches. In any case I do not want to deny the House another opportunity to hear the hon. Gentleman rubbish the previous Government, as he does whenever he makes a speech.
	I have spoken to or visited many social services departments throughout the country in recent months, and nearly all of them point to a crisis in recruitment. As one London authority put it:
	"The biggest issue is recruitment and retaining staff and maintaining a consistent direction, which is hard with so many initiatives being pushed our way. We have had Quality Protects, Sure Start, Connexions, Children's Trusts, the Climbié audit, the Hillingdon Judgement, the CPA, the SSI, and the Leaving Care Act—all of which impose different sets of 'Priorities' on a frequent basis . . . Resources which are already scarce are being redirected on a continuous basis by government intervention."

Jim Knight: rose—

Tim Loughton: One moment, I have more.
	One shire authority reported:
	"The biggest problem is money, with a forecast overspending for children's services of £4.6 million or 18.9 per cent. for the year 2003/04. We have 563 children looked after compared with 521 in 2001, 440 new referrals in December 2003 and increasing difficulty in recruiting and retaining foster carers. We currently have 226 registered foster carers compared with 265 in 2001."

Jim Knight: What conversations has the hon. Gentleman had with the right hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin)? Is it not the case that in his announcement of a future Tory Government's spending plans the right hon. Gentleman made no mention of children's services, which would be frozen for two years? After that, there would be an increase of only 2 per cent., which would result in huge cuts in social services funding and huge problems for vulnerable children.

Tim Loughton: Yet again the hon. Gentleman has entirely misrepresented my right hon. Friend the shadow Chancellor, and no doubt his Front-Bench colleagues will do so as well. He should remember that at the forefront of those proposals was continued spending on health and education.

Charles Clarke: It was health and schools.

Tim Loughton: It was health and education, and there will be pooled budgets, which the Minister for Children is trying to pool in any case. Children's services would not be affected, so let us not hear any more nonsense—[Interruption.] Members on the Front Bench can scoff as much as they like it, but I am afraid that that expenditure is a plain fact that they chose to ignore.
	One west country authority proposes to recruit qualified social work staff from Canada. There is also a great shortage of foster carers, which is posing a serious problem everywhere. The Fostering Network estimates that although there are 32,000 foster families in England, there is a shortage of more than 6,100 foster families. Just over two thirds of the 60,800 children in public care in England live with foster families, who offer the best refuge for vulnerable children, and their best chance of returning to a stable home environment. As we know, the state makes a bad parent, yet 60 per cent. of foster carers receive no more than a basic contribution towards costs. As no minimum level is set by the Government, allowances vary widely between local authorities.
	Some authorities said:
	"The amount spent on a few expensive placements for a small number of very difficult to place young people continues to escalate."
	Residential placements for looked-after children out of area can cost as much as £4,000 a week, and can skew the spending of the whole budget. Can the Minister for Children tell us how successful or otherwise has been the recruitment campaign first launched in October 2001 by the right hon. Member for Darlington (Mr. Milburn), then Secretary of State for Health? It appears to have taken a back seat by comparison with all the publicity devoted to the recruitment of doctors and nurses. In addition, many authorities report that social workers are moving away from the front line to safer jobs that do not include the monitoring and investigation of child protection.
	Local authorities have been caused major frustration by the Government's delay in coming forward with firm proposals and legislation despite the urgency of the Climbié case, which arose more than four years ago. The Green Paper on child protection was first promised by the Prime Minister in October 2002. The response to Laming, which was promised in spring 2003, eventually arrived as a Green Paper in September last year. That was followed by a short consultation period, but no White Paper. Finally, we are promised the Bill tomorrow. No pre-legislative scrutiny period was allowed, which makes it all the more important to get it right.
	Throughout that time, local authorities have been in limbo, keen to get on with the important business of overhauling their approach to child protection post- Climbié, but held back by not knowing what may be imposed on them by the Bill. Will a central model of a director of children's services combining education and children's social services be imposed on everybody? We have been getting mixed messages from the Minister's own departmental colleagues as to whether the director will have a managerial or a strategic responsibility. The position that is being created could be very important, controlling as much as 70 per cent. of a local authority's budget, so it is vital to get it right and to have proper lines of accountability. The Local Government Association says:
	"we are concerned that the proposals for a single director, accountable for children's social services and education are unduly prescriptive. Managerial arrangements must be a matter for local discretion depending on local circumstances; the same arrangements will not work across the board. In many cases the degree of prescription will force authorities to unpick arrangements that are working well to introduce less effective arrangements."
	Are children's trusts to become the norm in most authorities or in all? As Councillor Alison King, chairman of the LGA's social affairs and health executive, says,
	"Councils and their partners are best placed to organise the management of services for children, according to local circumstances, not civil servants in Whitehall"—
	a point that she has made to her local MP, the Secretary of State, on many occasions.
	There has been concern that central Government have been slow in integrating children's services in the way the Green Paper proposes local authorities and their local partners should. As one northern shire authority puts it,
	"The Government seems to have forgotten to tell NHS colleagues that they are supposed to be involved, and have given the PCTs and other health trusts a set of priorities which don't include children and young people's services."
	Overall, valuable time has been wasted—[Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Members on the Treasury Bench should not keep chattering while the hon. Gentleman is addressing the House—they would not expect the same if the situation were reversed.

Tim Loughton: They can express their discomfort at the appropriate time, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but they will have to listen to this.
	Overall, valuable time has been wasted despite the very substantial efforts of local authorities, and social workers in particular, to respond positively and practically to Lord Laming's recommendations.
	A key area that is essential in pushing forward the whole child protection agenda is that of information gathering and data sharing, yet it looks as though the Bill will avoid the whole issue and defer to reports from the identification, referral and tracking project trailblazers, which are not due for some time, and for which, as the Minister admits, funding has not yet been guaranteed. Laming identified information sharing as a key priority, and a weakness in the system that directly led to Victoria Climbié's death. As it stands, the police, social services, schools, health officials and other agencies are unclear about their legal position as regards how long they can retain their own information, let alone as to whether they can share it with another agency that may be able to add to the jigsaw to build a picture that reveals a strong possibility of child abuse.
	There are separate problems to do with the position of GPs, whom the Minister has been unduly hasty in berating despite their professional confidentiality obligations. Hence the Soham loophole, which revealed different police forces interpreting the same parts of the Data Protection Act 1998 in completely different ways, thereby missing crucial pieces of the jigsaw that might have prevented the tragedy in Soham. That led to the setting up of the Bichard inquiry, which has only just started its work.
	The Minister has left everyone involved in a state of complete confusion. We started off with what looked like a back-door ID card scheme that sought to establish files on all 11 million children in this country. Now the Government appear to be building a local intelligence hub that may address the problem of local information sharing through a central source, but offers no solution for dealing with, say, the seven-year-old with constant bruising noted by a GP in Newcastle, where police have been repeatedly called to the parents' address, but who then turns up on the other side of the country in Bristol; or the private foster carers in Manchester who are struck off the local authority's list for malpractice insufficient to lead to criminal proceedings or to place them on the Department of Health's blacklist, but who then turn up in Brighton eager for placements from a local authority that is chronically short of foster carers. It is arguably the transient cases who tend to be the most vulnerable, and we should concentrate on children in relation to whom the authorities have legitimate concerns rather than trying to put all 11 million children on a database that falls foul of all sorts of data protection regulations.

Hilton Dawson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Tim Loughton: I shall give way for the last time, just to keep the hon. Gentleman happy.

Hilton Dawson: It is a serious point. Does the hon. Gentleman not acknowledge the practical difficulties of his suggestion? Possibly more important, does he recognise the problems of labelling children and young people at an early stage? Is it not essential to include everyone in the system to ensure that it works well for the most vulnerable?

Tim Loughton: It is essential to have an information-sharing system so that all the agencies that form the vital jigsaw, which Herbert Laming so clearly identified, can do their job. There is no sign that the information-sharing protocols, let alone the required IT systems, have been established or are remotely on the horizon. Without them, there will be further delay. The hon. Gentleman should know that.
	What input will the children have into the information that is held on them and the people to whom access is permitted? The information must be secure against paedophiles and potential paedophiles. Has the Minister for Children considered linking local information hubs to a national mutual reference database, as we would like, which would signpost worried professionals to agencies elsewhere in the country that hold information on a vulnerable child? That could be done without holding detailed files centrally, which would pose all sorts of data protection problems. Decisions about whether action should be taken would remain with the authority in which the child resides.
	There are serious pressures on social services departments, which are keen to make changes but which are held back by Government delay. There is a serious shortage of key personnel, who are integral to effecting the necessary improvements, and complete confusion about what can be held on whom by whom, and who can tell what to whom. To add to the work load of all involved in child protection, they may have to tackle a hornet's nest in the light of the Canning verdict in the Appeal Court. Today, two high-profile civil court cases of removal of children from parents are being challenged on appeal for the first time.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: On my hon. Friend's point about who can know what and the information that can be disseminated, I ask him to consider a difficult constituency case in which two of my constituents, who are parents, had their two daughters taken away by court order for permanent adoption. They continue to protest that they have been badly treated. Despite my considerable efforts, I cannot get the information and I do not know whether the correct decisions have been made. Is it not essential to appoint a children's commissioner with proper powers to discover information, so that such cases can be referred and we can be sure that the correct action has been taken?

Tim Loughton: I take my hon. Friend's point. It is important that justice is done and is seen to be done, and that the proper procedures are followed. It remains to be seen whether a children's commissioner would have a role in that. We do not yet know the Government's proposals, but I want to consider where some of the procedures are going wrong.
	The Solicitor-General has dealt swiftly with the 258 convictions in the past 10 years for the murder, manslaughter or infanticide of a child under two by its parents. Seventy-two apparently relate to persons who are still serving a custodial sentence, and we await further progress reports. Last week, the Minister for Children made an announcement about family court cases, which my hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) mentioned, that will rightly prioritise families with sibling children who have been removed or are currently subject to care proceedings up to adoption.
	However, in concentrating on cases that are subject to disputed medical evidence, the Minister has limited the investigation to only the low hundreds. The announcement therefore marked a significant rowing back from the many thousands of cases in which children have been removed from parents in the family courts, often on the expert witness evidence of Professor Sir Roy Meadow and other proponents of his now discredited theories, and poorly prepared parents with inadequate legal representation were often simply unable to challenge the expert witnesses. Despite all that, the Minister strangely prejudged the outcome of all the possible miscarriages of justice by stating that it would not be appropriate for children to be returned to their birth parents across the board if such miscarriage were found.
	Many questions remain unanswered—not least why the Government did not act earlier, given the warnings from child experts which the Department for Education and Skills received and which are on record from as long ago as 2000. What new guidance has been issued to local authorities, given the shocking revelations of recent months? All the social services departments that I have visited claim that they received nothing from the Department. Does the guidance "Working Together to Safeguard Children", issued in 1999, and "Safeguarding Children in Whom Illness is Fabricated or Induced", issued in August 2002, still pertain, despite its heavy reliance on formal recognition, even though Munchausen's is the condition that dare not speak its name in Government speak?
	What is being done to regulate the expert witness registration procedures? It seems that anyone—such as the Minister or I—can set themselves up as an expert witness by filling in a simple form, including credit card details, and handing that over with a cheque to get on the list. There is minimal checking and no obvious way of removing a person from the list if their expertise is subsequently challenged.

Vera Baird: I might want to intervene again in a moment to comment on what the hon. Gentleman has just said, but I rose to comment on what he said a moment ago, which it has taken me a while to digest. Amazingly, he criticised the Minister for failing to say that anyone who had been involved in a case in which Professor Meadow had given evidence would automatically get their child back. The hon. Gentleman expected her to say that those children would automatically go back. Let me tell him that I appeared in a case in which Professor Meadow gave evidence, and in which there was powerful other evidence to the extent that he was almost unnecessary. Is the hon. Gentleman really suggesting, from the Opposition Front Bench, such gross irresponsibility?

Tim Loughton: I am not sure whether the hon. and learned Lady misheard me, or whether I did not express myself properly, but that is entirely and utterly not what I said. What I said was that—as the Minister had led us to believe would happen—all those cases in which there had been expert witness testimony that was now being called into question should be available to be reviewed. If the result of any such review was that there had been a miscarriage of justice, it should then be available to the parents to apply, where suitable and appropriate, for the children to be placed back with them. That is all that I said.

Hilton Dawson: rose—

Vera Baird: rose—

Tim Loughton: I shall not give way again to the hon. Gentleman, but I shall happily give way to the hon. and learned Lady in a moment.
	Of course, there will be a great many cases—I hope it will be most cases—in which the original judgment will be found not to be flawed. However, we do not know that now, so it is essential that we properly review all those cases. That is why it is curious that the Minister prejudged those cases by saying that, even if they were found in the parents' favour, those children should not be restored to those parents.

Vera Baird: The hon. Gentleman misunderstands totally how care orders and adoption orders are made. If Professor Meadow's evidence had been the sole testimony, and he had been quite wrong, it would not necessarily follow that in each and every case it would be in the child's best interest to be returned—it really would not. I urge the hon. Gentleman to consider very carefully what he is saying. He could raise false hopes in so many families; his behaviour here today is quite immoral.

Tim Loughton: I am afraid that the hon. and learned Lady is going completely over the top, given what I have said. I particularly used the phrase "where suitable and appropriate". In some cases—I stress, in some cases—if there is found to be something unsound in the original case, and if a child has been through a series of foster placements or failed adoptions and not been placed in a settled family environment, it might be appropriate for that child to be returned. What is not appropriate is to make a broad-brush statement that it would not be appropriate for any children to be returned to their parents even if it were found that the original case was unsound.

Vera Baird: rose—

Tim Loughton: I should like to make some progress, and the hon. and learned Lady may well want to make her own contribution later. I ask her, please, not to distort what I have said. I clearly did not say what she claims I did, and it clearly would have been irresponsible for me to do so. What is irresponsible is to say that even if there are found to be flaws, the children have no hope of being restored to their parents. That is unforgivable where the parents who have challenged these cases are concerned.
	What does the Minister intend to do to make family courts fairer for all parties? At the moment, children must be represented by a specialist lawyer from the child care panel, but parents are often unable to secure such expert representation. Too often, the interests of parents and children are put in opposition to each other, instead of our following the continental practice, which more readily encourages local authority involvement to rehabilitate children back into their families, if that is possible and poses no danger.
	As the editor of the excellent new publication Children Now has put it, there is
	"an increasingly widespread view that family courts are in crisis. Add to that the chaos within the children's guardian service CAFCASS"—
	the Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service—
	"where long delays in children being assigned guardians are resulting in cases being drawn out months longer than they would otherwise need to be . . . and the fact that the number of lawyers prepared to take on publicly funded cases is dwindling."
	There is an increasing feeling that the Minister is being badly advised on these matters, not least as a result of people who are closely associated with the ancien régime promoting discredited procedures.

Vera Baird: rose—

Tim Loughton: I shall wait until the hon. and learned Lady makes her own contribution later.
	I shall briefly touch on the children's fund. We welcomed the Minister's U-turn last week, but the 149 partnerships put in place in very worthwhile schemes that have so far helped more than 300,000 children and families across the country should never have been put in this position in the first place. They are still worried about their funding for 2005–06. I saw a very effective scheme in Bury last week, which was tackling bullying in schools. It was funded by the children's fund, but, having taken on fixed overheads and commitments on a three-year time scale, its future had been seriously cast in doubt.
	The Minister herself has said of the children's fund:
	"It is one of the Government's exciting and successful innovations to invest in services for a group of children who often miss out: the five to 13-year old group."—[Official Report, Westminster Hall, 24 February 2004; Vol. 418, c. 56WH.]
	However, the head of the National Children's Bureau, Paul Ennals, has said:
	"The episode has sent shock waves through the children's sector. Many voluntary agencies and local authorities have been scaling down projects and in some cases, laying off staff. And this shambles could have long term consequences and has undermined confidence in the Government's commitment to preventive work."
	The editorial in Children Now observes that
	"the attitude of some Whitehall officials who still believe that voluntary organisations are second-class subcontractors, more malleable than private companies, owed less obligation and more easily dumped when the going gets rough . . . threatening to destroy at a stroke all the good will and trust built up between the groups"
	and the Government.
	There are many other problems that we could touch on in this debate, and I am sure that other hon. Members will do so. There has been a big increase in the number of children being trafficked into Britain for sexual exploitation, and there is a desperate need for new procedures for registering and following up children who arrive alone from abroad. There is a big question mark over the inspection of children's homes by the National Care Standards Commission, whose annual report reveals that 10 per cent. of announced inspections of children's homes were not carried out, and that 47 per cent. of unannounced inspections did not take place either. What will the Minister do about that, as the NCSC is about to be merged into the Commission for Social Care Inspection?
	Why have the Government specifically excluded disabled children from full protection in the Green Paper? Experts warn that that will allow disability to disguise abuse. What is the Minister doing about the dramatic increase in child abductions? According to this week's Home Office report, white 10-year-old girls are most at risk in that regard. There were 846 abductions and attempted abductions in 2002–03, an increase of 45 per cent. on the 584 in the previous 12 months. Many of those cases involved looked-after children. The Children's Society has quite rightly highlighted the lack of suitable child protection measures for children in prison, whose numbers have doubled over the last 10 years, and for child asylum seekers. Furthermore, there is still no sign of a national service framework for children or an alcohol strategy.
	We have had many warm words from the Government, and many "eye-catching initiatives". They have issued many memos, and many departmental boxes have been ticked. However, their record will be judged on how many children have been helped in the field. How many have been rescued from abuse? How many have been saved from cruel torture or death? How many abusers have been deterred from plying their evil trade in the first place? How many looked-after children have been given a genuine second chance to have the kind of normal, stable, conventional upbringing that we all take for granted, and to which they are just as entitled as anyone else?
	The jury is still out on the quality and outcomes of what the Minister has achieved in the last nine months. In terms of the parliamentary time needed to allow input from all hon. Members in debating the necessary measures, there has not been a good start. The Conservatives strongly hope that the Bill to be published tomorrow—and a preparedness to listen to those most affected by its measures—will mark a genuine commitment to bringing about practical action and results, so that we shall never again be faced with the death of another Victoria Climbié as a result of what Lord Laming called "widespread organisational malaise".

DEFERRED DIVISION

Madam Deputy Speaker: I now have to announce the result of the Division deferred from a previous day.
	On the question relating to Prevention and Suppression of Terrorism, the Ayes were 370, the Noes were 49, so the Ayes have it.
	[The Division List is published at the end of today's debates.]

Margaret Hodge: I beg to move, To leave out from "House" to the end of the Question, and to insert instead thereof:
	"welcomes the fact that this Government acknowledged the importance of children's issues by appointing the first ever Minister with responsibility for children and young people; congratulates the Government's commitment to Lord Laming's report on safeguarding children, shown in the Green Paper Every Child Matters, and its determination to turn words into action by publishing the Children's Bill in the other place today; acknowledges that the £885 million Quality Protects Programme is already improving the life chances of vulnerable children; commends the Government for the 8.7% increase in funding for children's social services in the next financial year; and is alarmed by the Opposition's proposals to freeze spending on children's services."
	I am delighted that we have the opportunity today, in a debate called at the very time when the Children's Bill is being presented for its First Reading in the House of Lords, to set out both the Government's considerable record on safeguarding vulnerable children and our plans to reform and transform children's services. Ours are plans that will support our ambition to enable every child, including the most vulnerable, to fulfil their potential and to ensure that no child slips through the net. Ours are plans that give us all a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to reform services so that all children, but especially the most vulnerable, can achieve better outcomes. Ours are plans that are designed to maximise the opportunity for every child and to minimise the risk for every child.
	The Bill that has been presented in the House of Lords today, about which I will say more tomorrow, sets out a legislative framework for children's services and places the well-being and safeguarding of children and young people, particularly the most vulnerable, at its heart. The Bill supports a much wider programme of reform, which I want to touch on in my contribution, but I have to say that it is a bit rich for this Conservative Opposition to try to claim the protection of the vulnerable as central to their political concerns and spending priorities.
	I do not understand, nor will any rational person listening to the debate be able to begin to understand, how the Opposition can say that they care about vulnerable children, yet make public spending cuts the central theme of their political programme. We are determined to invest in the vital services that will better safeguard and protect the most vulnerable children, but they want to slash public spending and destroy our public services in the name of an ideological obsession with cutting taxation.

Tim Loughton: I am sorry that the Minister did not listen to the point that I made earlier, because what she is saying is complete and utter garbage. Will she confirm what she has said and is quoted as saying—that all the proposals in the forthcoming Bill will be cost-neutral?

Margaret Hodge: I have to say first that what I said is not garbage, because the commitment made by the right hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin), the shadow Chancellor, is simply to protect health and schools, not education. The hon. Gentleman should go away, re-read the speech and come back to the Chamber better informed for the debate.

Jonathan R Shaw: A central agency involved in protecting children is the police, in respect of whom the Opposition have said they will make dramatic cuts.

Margaret Hodge: My hon. Friend is right to draw to the House's attention the impact that cuts in police spending would have on the police's ability to protect vulnerable children.
	We are determined to invest in the vital services—

Tim Loughton: Cost-neutral.

Margaret Hodge: I will deal with that point as well: over time, if I may say so, we have increased spending year on year on social services and children's social services, whereas the Opposition, year on year when they were in government, cut expenditure on and investment in children's social services, which protect vulnerable children.

Eleanor Laing: Will the Minister give way?

Margaret Hodge: May I make a little progress? I will give way to the hon. Lady in a while.
	I do not understand how the Opposition can claim to want to protect vulnerable children when the shadow Chancellor—I say again what he has clearly and unambiguously stated—says that he will freeze spending on all but schools, and therefore on children's services, in cash terms for two years.
	The shadow Chancellor says that he will allow only a 2 per cent. increase in expenditure after that point, so where will the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) find the money to protect vulnerable children when the Opposition would cut services by £100 million in the first year? Where would he be when that figure rose to £230 million in the second year? What does he intend—9,000 fewer social workers or 3,000 fewer Sure Start programmes? Is that where the cuts would fall? How would those cuts, in the terms of the Opposition's own motion, give vulnerable children the priority they need and deserve?

Eleanor Laing: Is the right hon. Lady aware of the enormous cuts in Government grant to Essex county council last year, which meant that in my constituency, and throughout Essex, social services, which were trying hard to provide services for children, including vulnerable children, had to be cut, directly because of the red pen of the Deputy Prime Minister?

Margaret Hodge: That is arrant nonsense. I am aware that Essex social services, along with every other social services department, will get an almost 9 per cent. increase in its spending on children's social services, so it will continue to do the effective job that it is currently doing, building on it and showing the way on the reforms that we want to provide a better chance for vulnerable children.

Mark Francois: I thank the Minister for her courtesy in giving way, but I must tell her that she is incorrect. There has been a large movement of resources away from local authorities in the home counties towards local authorities in the midlands and the north of England. When the change was made last year, Essex county council had the lowest grant increase of any authority in the entire country, and it suffered badly because of it. That is the reality, not the spin that the Minister is giving out.

Margaret Hodge: There has been a year-on-year increase in expenditure across the board on local authority services. That has been coupled with a proper and totally appropriate redistribution so that areas that suffered from lack of investment because they were mainly Labour-controlled local authority areas got a proper slice of the cake in the distribution of local authority resources.

Joan Humble: On the Labour Benches, the increase in resources for social services departments has been very much welcomed. Will my right hon. Friend address the issue that I do not recollect that the Opposition mentioned: child mental health services? Vulnerable children often have behavioural and mental health problems. Is she liaising with her colleagues to ensure that mental health services, as well as social services departments, have additional investment that helps those young people and their families?

Margaret Hodge: I concur completely with the important point that my hon. Friend makes. Indeed, the Under-Secretary of State for Health, my hon. Friend the Member for South Thanet (Dr. Ladyman), who has responsibility for children's mental health services, will reply to the debate, which shows how closely we work across Government, and he will reflect on the 10 per cent. increase year on year that we are investing in children's mental health services.

David Amess: Is the Minister telling the House that for purely party political reasons this rotten Government have given Southend children's social services department only a 2.4 per cent. increase, which is way below the national average? Is she saying that that is just because we have Conservative MPs in Southend? That is what she has been telling the House.

Margaret Hodge: I am telling the hon. Gentleman that this good Government have put right the rotten actions of the previous Conservative Government in deliberately—[Interruption.]

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The Minister was replying to an intervention.

Margaret Hodge: I will now make some progress.
	I want to go further, because I do not believe that the Opposition begin to understand what we need to do to provide a stronger framework to support children and families. Let me give some instances. While we want to use the public purse to build a quality child care infrastructure, which will support choice for children and their parents and which will enhance the opportunity for families to climb out of poverty, the Opposition want to use the money to give mothers no choice but to stay in the home. While we understand that we can safeguard vulnerable children and enhance their opportunity only by ensuring that all our mainstream services deliver effectively for children—as well as strengthening the targeted services—they want only to offer the specialist services that families and children see as stigmatised and paternalistic. Poor services for poor children: that is the Conservative mantra. While Labour Members understand that parents want and need support to bring up their children throughout their lives, particularly at key transition points in their development, the Conservatives believe that parenting should always remain the private concern of individuals, with the state intervening only when things go wrong.

Tim Loughton: This really is rubbish. So far we have heard nothing but attacks on Conservatives for policy that we have never announced—policy that would never be ours. The Government have let it out of the bag that they have shifted funding up north to suit their own political ends.
	Before the Minister starts berating us about fantasy figures that do not exist, she should tell us how she expects social services departments to cope with all the extra responsibilities she has given them on the very small increases that they received? Most of the money has gone to education. We are not suggesting slashing any provision; we are suggesting increasing provision. The Minister has been decreasing the portion that goes to social services departments for children's services, particularly in the south of England, and she knows it.

Margaret Hodge: I suggest that the hon. Gentleman read the shadow Chancellor's speech on public spending cuts.

Jonathan R Shaw: The Tory council in Kent, which is most certainly in the south-east of England—there is no disputing that—asked the Government for a 5 per cent. increase and received, I think, 5.4 per cent. The idea that all the money is going north is a fantasy.

Margaret Hodge: My hon. Friend, who works very hard on behalf of his constituents, understands what we are doing much better than some Conservative Members.

Jim Knight: Is it not the case that next year Labour councils will receive a 5.9 per cent. increase overall, while Tory councils will receive 6.1 per cent? Meanwhile, council tax is going up by more in Tory areas than in Labour areas. The truth is that Tory councils, most of which are in the south, are receiving more from the Government than Labour councils. That is ridiculous.

Margaret Hodge: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that important point.
	Central to this debate is the fact that the Government are committed to year-by-year investment so that—most important—we can abolish child poverty. The Conservatives, whether they talk of one area or another, are committed to year-by-year cuts. That will only increase poverty, and will only widen division. For me, it is the worst and most destructive feature of the Thatcher legacy.
	Let no one forget that it was under the last Conservative Government that child poverty more than doubled, with a third of all children living in poverty when we took office. That was the largest increase in child poverty in any industrialised nation. Those are the facts; that is the Conservatives' record. They created more vulnerable children, and they never delivered for vulnerable children.

Lorna Fitzsimons: My constituents, who suffered for 18 years under the Conservative party, will take the Conservatives' crocodile tears for what they are, given the criminal underfunding of child and adolescent mental health services in the north-west. Where was the money? The Conservatives took it away from the north to subsidise the south. They did not care about our children—the most vulnerable children in the country.

Margaret Hodge: I entirely agree. I can tell that my hon. Friend feels as strongly as I do.
	The Children's Bill and the reform programme on which we are embarked build on our considerable achievements for vulnerable children since 1997. It is this Government who, through reforms to the tax and benefits system, have lifted more than 500,000 children out of poverty—children who were condemned to a vulnerable start through no fault of their own. Would that investment survive the Tory public spending cuts?
	It is this Government who have increased maternity pay, introduced paid paternity leave, increased maternity leave and improved rights to flexible working, so that parents can balance their working lives with their child care responsibilities, thereby helping all children, particularly vulnerable children. Will the Conservatives now support those moves and work to improve them? It is this Government who have created and funded more than 500 Sure Start programmes in the most deprived communities in our country. They have to be long-term investments, but we are already getting evidence that Sure Start is creating massively better opportunities for our most vulnerable children. Through one programme in Leicester, referrals to emergency social services have been cut by 40 per cent. Through another programme in Corby, the number of children being assessed as having a special educational need when going to school has been cut by 10 per cent. Would the Conservatives not just applaud our Sure Start programme, but sustain and expand this initiative?
	It is this Government who have delivered free nursery education for every three and four-year-old—six months sooner than we said we would. That investment supports every child, but in particular it supports opportunity for the most vulnerable in our community. Will the Conservatives now support an investment that they failed to make during the 18 long years in which they had the power to do so? And it is this Government who will increase spending for children's social services by nearly 9 per cent. in the next financial year. Would the Conservatives, who are committed to cuts in spending, keep our investment in children's social services going?
	It is this Government who introduced the quality protects programme—a five-year investment of nearly £900 million to improve the life chances of some of the most vulnerable children in the country.

Hilton Dawson: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the quality protects programme did extend as far as Essex, and that the money was used very well? In fact, Essex social services developed a pioneering family group conferencing system. Opposition Members would do well to celebrate that fact, rather than constantly denigrate their local services.

Margaret Hodge: I should tell those Opposition Members who have constituencies in Essex that much very good, innovative and effective practice is being developed by—[Interruption.]

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. If the hon. Member for Rayleigh (Mr. Francois) has a comment to make, perhaps he could make an intervention.

Mark Francois: rose—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order.

Margaret Hodge: If the hon. Member for Rayleigh (Mr. Francois) had been listening, I was responding—in a way in which I would have thought he would welcome—to all Members who represent the county of Essex. Essex county council is developing much excellent, innovative and effective practice, particularly in respect of children's social services. Those Members should be applauding and encouraging that practice, not denigrating it.

Eleanor Laing: I agree with the Minister unreservedly—the social services department of Essex county council is doing an excellent job. Putting everything in one department under one person was an excellent idea, and the newly appointed director of learning services and social services is doing an excellent job. I have spoken to her about it many times in great detail, but it must be recognised that she and her colleagues are doing that excellent work under the great constraint of the massive budget cuts that the Deputy Prime Minister imposed last year.

Margaret Hodge: I have to tell the hon. Lady that, when in government, her party cut spending year on year, while we are increasing spending year on year.
	It is this Government—

Mark Francois: Will the Minister give way?

Margaret Hodge: One final time.

Mark Francois: I thank the Minister for her courtesy in giving way again. For the avoidance of doubt, Conservative-controlled Essex county council has an excellent social services department. I have been briefed on the value of family group conferencing, which can be extremely valuable. I have great praise for Essex county council social services department, which does a very good job, particularly given the financial pressures that it is under because of this rotten Government.

Margaret Hodge: Perhaps after that lengthy exchange we can now all agree on the good work being done by the county represented by a number of hon. Members.
	I want to describe our record. The Government have enacted a raft of legislation better to safeguard vulnerable children, from the Care Standards Act 2000 to the Adoption and Children Act 2002 and the Protection of Children Act 1999. It is this Government who have increased investment in our schools year on year, so that all our children, but particularly the most vulnerable, can achieve more and realise their potential.
	It is this Government who are developing the extended schools programme so that, by 2006, every authority will have at least one extended school, where all the services that vulnerable children in particular need—from study support to sporting facilities; from children's mental health services to advice about drugs—can be accessed in one place, where children are and where they feel safe.
	It is this Government who have funded and created the first programme of preventive services for vulnerable children in every community through the children's fund. The Opposition sought to criticise the Government because, as a result of the programme proving so successful, we have had to identify new and extra money to keep projects funded. Far from cutting these preventive services for children, we have put an additional £20 million into sustaining them. What hope would those programmes have under a Conservative Government ideologically fixated on cutting public spending?
	It is this Government who have invested in preventive and restorative youth justice programmes, which have cut reoffending rates by 20 per cent. It is this Government who have virtually eradicated youth unemployment and introduced educational maintenance allowances to support vulnerable young people to stay in education and training. It is this Government who have developed the modern apprenticeship programme, with a record 230,000 young people now taking part in a modern apprenticeship course.
	That is the record on which we want to build; that is a record that only a Labour Government can achieve. That record gives us a sound basis on which to build a further programme of reform, which we heralded in our Green Paper, "Every Child Matters", and which we are putting into practice in part through the Bill we are introducing today.

Tim Loughton: Before the Minister gets completely carried off to fantasy island, will she confirm that, to make up the cuts that she was proposing in the children's fund, the Government will take money from the youth offending teams programme? Will she confirm also that the budget for children's fund projects in 2005–06 has not been confirmed and is still vulnerable? Will she confirm that all the programmes she is looking at go only to 2006? There has been no commitment from the Government—we have not had the next spending review—on any of the funding being sustained beyond 2006. Before accusing us of cuts that we have never proposed, will she give us guarantees that these schemes will continue after the next election, in the unlikely event that she is still in a position to do something about it?

Margaret Hodge: The hon. Gentleman must read speeches that are put into the public domain on behalf of the Conservative party so that he is clear on what his party is committed to. I can confirm that we have not cut the youth offending teams programme in any way; I do not know where he got that idea from. He is correct that we will settle the 2005–06 funding for the children's fund programme once we have the outcome of this year's spending review.

Virginia Bottomley: Much of this debate has been about funding, but I am not clear whether there is a relationship between child abuse and funding. There are two key issues: data sharing, and how one requires a child to be seen whose parents are not producing the child. Will the Minister require a child to be produced for a school nurse or health visitor when there is concern about its well-being?

Margaret Hodge: The right hon. Lady is correct to draw attention to those two very important points. I shall cover them as I move on. I wanted to set a context, because vulnerable children will be supported to develop their opportunities only if their lives in the round are supported by action from government in the round.
	Since we launched our Green Paper we have seen the richest and most significant debate on children's services for over a generation. I in no way apologise for having engaged in that debate and having had a wide consultation, which enabled us to listen to many voices as we formulated the Bill that we presented in the other place this afternoon. We received 4,500 responses to our consultation. Most gratifyingly, two thirds of the responses were from children and young people themselves. That, I hope, reflects the way in which we intend to work over the coming period.
	We are dealing with vital but difficult issues. We shall succeed only if we ensure that children's voices are at the heart of our endeavours and if we work closely in partnership with all our stakeholders, so that together we can build on what we learn works to improve the outcome for all our children, particularly vulnerable children. That approach, of working in partnership and having children's interests at the centre of our concerns, will inform all our reforms.
	Social services departments have not, as the Opposition suggest, been kept in limbo, waiting for the Children's Bill. They have been fully engaged in working with us to make sure that our proposals are soundly based, workable and right, and that they will help to bring about a step change in the opportunities for the safeguarding of all children.
	I accept that we have much left to do. Lord Laming's report on the events leading up to the death of Victoria Climbié and the joint chief inspectors' report, "Safeguarding Children", set out a number of challenges. However, we have not, as the Opposition suggest, failed to act since Lord Laming published his report. Indeed, of the 708 recommendations, only one has been rejected. We have fully implemented 60 and we have started work on all the others, but I accept that we need to go further.
	We need to tackle the issues identified in both reports, of ill-trained and overworked staff, often not properly supported by their managers.We need to do more to recruit, retain and train good-quality staff to work throughout the children's work force. We need to ensure that senior managers, right up to chief executives, accept responsibly and accountably for the actions of their staff. We need to address the weaknesses identified in the way in which area child protection committees work, with insufficient authority and few resources to carry out their functions. We need to become better at sharing information across professional boundaries and within professional organisations, and across local authority boundaries, so that children are less likely to fall through the net.

Eleanor Laing: Given what the Minister has just said about sharing information, on which I entirely agree with her, do the Government propose to amend the Data Protection Act 1998?

Margaret Hodge: We shall ensure that, as we have laid out in the Green Paper, there are no inhibitions within the Act that will prevent the necessary sharing of information between professionals and across local authority boundaries.
	We need to develop the very difficult multi-agency working that we know makes sense, and we need to ensure that individual agencies are clear about their roles and responsibilities in protecting children. We need further to shift from intervening after things have gone wrong to supporting children and their families to prevent things from going wrong.
	Most important, we need to make sure that the well-being and welfare of children are at the centre of the assessment process and the decision-making process. Nobody asked Victoria Climbié what she wanted or how she was. That must not happen again.
	Our Children's Bill sits within a much wider context of reform. As part of that work, we are preparing the budgets for the next spending review period, and we will sharpen accountability with a more coherent system of targets and a better performance management system with stronger inspection levers. We are creating much simpler and more flexible funding mechanisms, with decisions being taken as close as is practicable to the front line. We will ensure investment in the skills, leadership and motivation of all who work with children, young people and their families. We are strengthening partnership working by developing the children's trusts, children's centres and the extended schools programme and by legislating on duties to co-operate.

Annette Brooke: I understand that some children's trusts are now in operation. Given sufficient time, will a full evaluation of their work be published?

Margaret Hodge: It is extremely important that, throughout the reform programme, we evaluate all the initiatives as they move forward and learn from that evaluation. However, it would be dilatory to wait until we have a full evaluation before moving on to the next step and it might lead to accusations of not working in the best interests of children as quickly as possible. We will continually evaluate and amend what we do to in the light of what the evaluation tells us.
	We shall also support the culture change and the improvement that we want with a programme of support, coupled with proportionate intervention in areas where children's services fall below acceptable standards. As we have already outlined, the Bill will support our reform agenda.
	In a historic move, we intend to establish a children's commissioner for England, and children will help us to choose the first one. The commissioner will be independent of both Parliament and the Government, ensuring that the views of all children, particularly the most vulnerable, are gathered and that they influence the development of policies for children, young people and families.
	Our Bill will ensure that all the agencies that are important in children's lives work together to improve children's well-being and safety. We shall strengthen the safeguarding of children by creating statutory local safeguarding boards with specific duties on the key agencies both to safeguard and protect children within their own organisations and in partnership with other local agencies. The Bill establishes clear accountability for children's services with the appointment of a single director for children's services and a lead member in every local authority, building on the good practical experience on the ground in counties such as Essex.
	Our Bill not only introduces statutory duties on organisations in the public, private and voluntary sector to work together, but removes the barriers that prevent them from doing so. We are legislating to establish an integrated inspection framework so that services are judged against common standards and are assessed on how well they work together to achieve better outcomes for children. We are providing for new intervention powers for children's social services to bring them into line with the powers that we already have for education. We are also legislating in the difficult area of establishing a framework to enable better sharing of information across all services. Finally, the Bill also contains proposals to improve the educational attainment of looked-after children and to beef up and improve the regulation of private fostering.
	The Bill is a crucial piece in the jigsaw of reform. It stands alongside the development of children's trusts, which will provide a joined-up approach to the planning, commissioning and delivery of children's services. It stands alongside our commitment to create more extended schools, providing a range of services—often beyond the school day—for children, families and the wider community. We see the development of such structures as supporting our standards agenda and our social inclusion agenda. Only by supporting every child can we raise achievement levels in every school, and only by raising the educational achievement of vulnerable children can we help to ensure that they are given an equal opportunity in our society.
	The Bill stands alongside our work force strategy. We have already raised the number of people choosing to train as social workers. We are looking at new routes into working with children, and are developing training programmes so that all professionals share a vocabulary and an understanding of child development, which will enable them to fulfil their statutory duties properly. We are developing leadership programmes and establishing sector skills councils to help us drive our reforms forward.
	Our programme for change is wide in its range, strong in its component parts and innovative, exciting and important in what it means in terms of better outcomes for children and their families. It is not a hotch-potch of unrelated and opportunistic points to be scored in the comfort of a debating chamber. It is not an incoherent set of gripes cobbled together to little purpose. It is not a less than honest statement that pretends to care about vulnerable children, while being intent on cutting investment in the very services we have to protect and safeguard the future of children.
	Ours is a radical and coherent set of policies and programmes that will help to ensure that every child in our country enjoys the opportunity to realise their potential and really grows up safely to be healthy, to enjoy their childhood, to benefit from a good education, to contribute positively to their community and to find economic well-being. Ours are policies that will ensure that children do not fall through the net.
	All Members who sincerely wish to protect the most vulnerable children in our community have no option but to reject the ill-thought-out proposition put forward by the Opposition and to support the amendment in the name of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and other members of his Government.

Phil Willis: I congratulate the Conservatives on choosing this important subject for debate. However, as the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) and the Minister for Children were making their speeches, many Members may have been recalling meeting constituents who had been the subject of abuse and for whom the Bill has probably come too late.
	I recall three young men who were systematically abused in a children's home in Harrogate—the life of at least one of them has been blighted by those experiences. If they have been watching the Parliament channel this afternoon, I wonder what they make of a debate that has been nothing but a party political wrangle about who did what to whom and how much each party intends to spend. It is a shame when debate on such an important subject is brought down to no more than a party political wrangle—[Interruption.] I can assure the Under-Secretary of State for Health, the hon. Member for South Thanet (Dr. Ladyman), that I have no intention of joining in such wrangling but that I shall address the subject of the debate.
	The debate would have had far greater relevance if the Bill had been published in this place and we had read it. We could then have held an informed debate with the Minister, which would have been incredibly useful. Instead, we hear that the right hon. Lady will make a statement tomorrow; presumably, she has chosen to launch the Bill elsewhere in London rather than in the House. If that is not the case, I shall of course be happy to take an intervention from her. We did not have the way forward report, either; if we had, we would have been far better informed about the consultation exercise and its aftermath.
	Ironically, the Conservative party failed, in choosing the wording of the motion, to mention the crisis in two very important areas—the youth justice system and refugee children. During the Queen's Speech, the Leader of the Opposition tramped round the television studios in Westminster, condemning the Government for threatening to remove benefits from children and condemning the fact that they would be incarcerated. It is the height of hypocrisy that he marched his troops into the Lobby in favour of the Bill when it came before the House this week.
	There can be few groups of children in the United Kingdom who suffer more from racial and institutional abuse than refugee children. What other group of children can be detained without limit, without excuse and without having committed any crime other than to be the children of parents who have come to Britain seeking asylum? So far, those in that group can be detained by as much as 20 weeks, simply because they are the children of asylum seekers.
	Following an inspection of the Dungavel immigration and removal centre in October 2002, Her Majesty's chief inspector of prisons said that
	"the positive development of children was compromised by the secure nature of the facility and the uncertainty surrounding the length of stay".
	Why are those children not important? Thirty-five children are currently being detained under these laws, yet there is not a word about them from Ministers or the Opposition.

Hilton Dawson: I agree with everything that the hon. Gentleman has said on this subject. Does he, like me, look forward to the day when the areas of youth justice and asylum and immigration currently under Home Office control might fall within the remit of my right hon. Friend the Minister with responsibility for children and families?

Phil Willis: I say to the hon. Gentleman, who has a proud record in defence of children's rights, that I do, with one proviso: that the Minister have an independent portfolio, because without that independence it will make little or no difference.
	If the Conservatives are serious about the protection of vulnerable children—I believe that the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham is, because he asked a significant number of questions on that and we were all informed as a result of those questions—I hope that they will join the Liberal Democrats in pressing for an end to the detention of innocent refugee children in secure prisons, because that is a blight on anything that we do to achieve a better position for vulnerable children. I hope that the hon. Gentleman at least will do so.
	Interestingly, too, the motion makes no reference to children involved in the youth justice system, despite the successive criticisms of Her Majesty's chief inspector of prisons and the damning comment in the joint chief inspectors' report in January 2003, which found that
	"the welfare needs of children and young people who commit offences were not being adequately addressed by those responsible for their welfare".

Annette Brooke: Will my hon. Friend join me in asking the Minister to consider extending the Children Act 1989 to the Prison Service? A recent High Court judgment found that local authorities have responsibility for children in prison. Given all the terrible tragedies in our prisons, it would make a big difference if the Prison Service were to apply the Act.

Phil Willis: I thank my hon. Friend for that comment. Let me say to the Minister in all sincerity that if we discover, when the Bill is published tomorrow, that the Children Act 1989 will not be extended to prisons and young offenders institutions, she will have a case to answer, and in Committee we shall make a good argument for its extension. The Minister cannot say now whether that is in the Bill, because the Bill has not been published; that is fair enough.
	The United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child has repeatedly criticised successive Governments—both Conservative and Labour—for the way in which children in trouble with the law are treated and for our failure as a nation to integrate the UN convention on the rights of the child into juvenile justice. Under article 40, we are expected to separate the system for dealing with children from that for adults. Again, that may well be proposed in the Children's Bill, but it is a sadness that that has not yet occurred. Article 3 of the convention says that we should ensure that the interests of the child are a primary consideration in all decisions about them. Article 37 says that custody should be used only as a last resort.
	Those principles are important because, despite the numerous criticisms and child protection failures in the youth justice system, the Government have not set out a clear role for youth offending teams or the Prison Service when dealing with the child protection system. As a distinct group, children in the care of our youth justice system are more likely to die, self-harm and face serious risk to their well-being and future success than almost any other group of children. It is a pity that the Minister does not take on board that powerful statement, which is borne out by all the evidence.
	Although many people are delighted when some young people end up in custodial institutions, we have failed to realise that the vast majority of cases involve highly damaged young people and that the system that operates does absolutely nothing to support them. They are the group most likely to come from homes where abuse is common, neglect is the norm and other systems of care and protection have failed.
	The hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham is right about the delays and confusion in introducing not only the Bill but other commitments, following the tragic death of Victoria Climbié and the Laming inquiry. He is right to point to the appalling debacle of the Minister's handling of the children's fund. The Minister proudly said that she had got £20 million more for the fund as a result of its success. That is stretching credibility. What actually happened is that she stopped the fund. She told groups all over the country—they were sometimes in the middle of three-year contracts—"You aren't getting any more money."
	The hue and cry of right hon. and hon. Members and voluntary groups throughout the country forced the Minister to reconsider and provide additional money. The hon. Gentleman is right to say that those projects have no guarantee of funding even in their third year—never mind beyond that—and the Minister should state in summing up the debate that every current three-year contract will be honoured. If that is the case, I shall feel that at least one successful thing has come from the debate.

Annette Brooke: Does my hon. Friend agree that the apparent lack of consultation before and during the cuts has affected the relationship with voluntary organisations and that a commitment to greater consultation is needed, as well as the pledge of money?

Phil Willis: The hon. Member for Sure Start—the hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Jonathan Shaw)—said that the voluntary sector is crucial. I am sorry to refer to a Committee in-joke that relates to the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mrs. Laing), who has now left the Chamber. My hon. Friend is right to suggest that the voluntary sector is crucial in terms of the proposed Bill and supporting vulnerable children, and the removal of funding from the children's fund was a devastating blow to many of those organisations.
	The hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham made a brief reference to the national service framework for children. The motion refers to the delay in producing that framework, which was announced in 2001 as a huge leap forward. After reading the motion, I was interested about what had happened to the national framework. We know, and it was said earlier, that children's mental health services are in a mess—and were in a mess 10 or 20 years ago. Children's mental health services are one of the absolute disgraces of our health service.
	Three years after the organisation was announced, its director, Professor Aynsley-Green, said in his December newsletter to its staff, who had all been appointed:
	"There are of course many milestones which have been met along the way"—
	he did not mention one—
	"in particular the recognition of the importance of children's mental health services and neo-natal care".
	If, after three years, the organisation's only claim of success is a recognition of what it knew three years previously, my goodness, it is not much of a success. That is one reason why we will support the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham in the Lobby tonight.
	I have much sympathy with the Government's desire to create a lasting framework to address the long history of high-profile abuse cases that have blighted young people's lives for far too long. If the delays are an attempt to get things right and to address the difficult matters of prevention, identification, information collection, transfer and, above all, action, the wait will be worthwhile. If, however, when we see the Bill tomorrow it fails to address those complex issues, the Government will be rightly condemned.
	We have always supported the aims of the Green Paper and have been as one with the Government in welcoming a commitment to a children's commissioner, a single support structure in local authorities and, crucially, direct responsibility for the protection of vulnerable children. A situation such as that in which the former chief executive of Haringey excused failures of child protection because
	"he was not clear in his own mind as to where the line of responsibility lies"
	must never be accepted in the future. The Minister and the Government are absolutely right to say that somebody in every local authority must have ultimate responsibility. I hope that the Bill will make it clear not only that such blatant buck-passing will not be accepted, but that it will be treated as a criminal offence. We will give the organisation teeth by making it clear that the person in charge is responsible under the law, as well as on paper.

Jonathan R Shaw: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Phil Willis: No, I am trying to get on because I want to allow others to speak.
	One important benefit of the delay that appears to have taken place is the acceptance by the Minister that there must be a director of children's services and that the integration of services will be obligatory. Local authorities will be allowed to develop their own structures and build on what is often excellent practice. The Minister rightly said that many local authorities have first-class structures that integrate children's and education services, and it would be wrong to dismantle those structures for a one-size-fits-all approach. I applaud the Minister for listening to the Local Government Association and local authorities, and changing her mind—if that is what we discover when the Bill is published tomorrow.
	The hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham was right to be concerned about the interrelationship between the proposed legislation and the Data Protection Act 1988. We have given a cautious welcome to a national children's database and recognise that if information is to be shared, it must be collected—there is little point to the system unless information can be collected, stored and made available. How that will be done, to whom information will be made available, when it will be removed, and when it will become the responsibility of the individual are complex issues. It was sad that the Minister said absolutely nothing about that, despite the fact that several hon. Members intervened on her. If the Under-Secretary's excuse is simply that "the Bill will not be published until tomorrow", that is not good enough. Professionals have been asking about the issues every day since publication of the Green Paper, and the issues have been the subject of much of the correspondence that the Minister has received on the Green Paper.
	As a former head teacher, I would be uneasy to have or to pass on information about a child that was not available to that child or to his or her parents, yet that is precisely the scenario envisaged under the proposed arrangements. I have no answer to that complex problem. Sometimes it is desirable not to hand on such information. People working in the field need clarity so that what happened in relation to the Soham case—an extremely serious issue—is not repeated. Clear guidance must be issued on what information can be released, to whom, and when.

Jonathan R Shaw: I can understand why the hon. Gentleman did not want to give way when he was talking about criminal offences and directors of social services. He turned crimson, so I presume he realised that it was a stupid thing to say.
	The hon. Gentleman is right to say that a head teacher who had information would be in a difficult position, but can he help the debate by giving an example in which he, an experienced and distinguished head teacher, had information that he would not have chosen to pass on?

Phil Willis: On occasion, social services gave me information on what was happening in a child's extended family. On another occasion, a child was involved in explicit sexual activities, but there was a problem with the parent: the parent was violent toward the child and had, in fact, burnt the child with a poker. In such cases, there can be difficulties in releasing information that one would normally have given to a parent or a third party. Head teachers will be in the position of having to make extremely difficult decisions. There is no easy answer to such problems, and I was honest enough to say that.
	The concept of information being given on a need-to-know basis might satisfy the spirit of the proposals, but it is wide open to misinterpretation. I hope that the Minister for Children will clarify how and when she proposes to give guidance to head teachers and others who might need to know. Will the right hon. Lady or the Under-Secretary of State for Health, the hon. Member for South Thanet, who will sum up the debate, let us know their thoughts about the disclosure to a young person of information held on that young person? At what point will young people have an automatic right to the information held on them? At what point will a young person aged under 16 have a right to that information? If our aim is to implement the UN convention on the rights of the child, giving information to children is crucial.
	The Conservative motion is slightly misleading, in that it gives the impression that local authorities have not responded to the Laming recommendations and that the process of improving child protection services is simply waiting for the Children's Bill to be published. It would be wrong to leave the House with that false impression. We have some excellent social services departments and some brilliant professionals in the field. The hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham is right to point out the shortage of professional staff—whether the damage would be repaired by Conservative spending cuts or Government support is a matter for political debate—but that does not resolve the problem that the vast majority of those professionals, who are brilliant at what they do, are overworked and underpaid. The Liberal Democrats take this opportunity to put on the record our congratulations and thanks to them.
	I wish to draw the Under-Secretary's attention to a specific commitment regarding the protection of children who are looked after. The Minister for Children made only a fleeting reference to such children, and although I understand that she could not say everything in her speech, we should not forget that, in practice, Victoria Climbié was a looked-after child. She was sent from the Ivory Coast to be looked after by her aunt and her aunt's boyfriend. In effect, she had little protection under the existing law, and it is crucial that such private fostering arrangements are effectively covered in the future. Surprisingly, the Green Paper does not refer to private fostering—if I am wrong, the Minister will correct me when he replies.
	The vast majority of looked-after children are not privately family fostered; they are the 60,000 children who at any one time are the responsibility of the state. That group of children is without doubt the most vulnerable and the most complex to support. They do not fall into an easy single category, but have a number of common features: two years ago, a massive 96 per cent. of looked-after children had behavioural or emotional difficulties; 27 per cent. had a physical or mental impairment; 41 per cent. had been abused or neglected, and many will go on to live in abusive relationships; 10 per cent. had been taken into care through family dysfunction; and 31 per cent. had not received basic health screening, dental checks or inoculations. Life holds out no great hope for looked-after children.

Hilton Dawson: I appreciate the spirit in which the hon. Gentleman makes his remarks, but I hope that he will refer to work by Mike Stein of York university, which indicates that the future for young people in care is much brighter than he suggests. Young people leaving care are, in the main, extremely resilient, and a fairly small proportion of care leavers have the sorts of problems that he describes.

Phil Willis: The hon. Gentleman is right to say that there is hope, but we must recognise that a significant number of young people—55 per cent.—leave care without a single GCSE between them, and that 26 per cent. of them have statements of special educational needs. One in three of our current prison population was a looked-after child. The statistics are chilling, and that so many youngsters who are looked after succeed is an enormous credit to the people who looked after them, our social services and our care homes. It will be desperate if the Children's Bill does not address the minority of youngsters who do not succeed.
	Thank God that many children in care do not catch the headlines like Victoria Climbié, Maria Colwell, Jasmine Beckford and Lauren Wright, and the Bill will change the lives of many looked-after children. The real issue is to make sure that the 60,000 children in care have a rosy future free of abuse. Hopefully, tomorrow's Bill will set them on the right path.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Several hon. Members are trying to catch my eye. If their comments are brief, all may be successful.

Jonathan R Shaw: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis). We have spent quite a lot of time together on the Higher Education Bill.
	I shall begin by quoting the introduction to Lord Laming's report, which concerns little Victoria Climbié:
	"The food would be cold and would be given to her on a piece of plastic while she was tied up in the bath. She would eat it like a dog, pushing her face to the plate. Except, of course that a dog is not usually tied up in a plastic bag full of its excrement. To say that Kouao and Manning treated Victoria like a dog would be wholly unfair; she was treated worse than a dog."
	That is chilling, but when we debate such sensitive issues it is important that we remind ourselves of the horror that such children experience. Time and again, such reports are presented to Parliament. My hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe) mentioned Maria Colwell, and I am sure that after that inquiry hon. Members said, "Never again." Unfortunately, children will die again, but our responsibility as policy makers, citizens, councillors, neighbours and people involved with children is to put our hand on our heart and ask whether we have done our very best. Have we done our best to ensure that mechanisms are in place to protect children like Victoria Climbié, to intervene and save their lives? If we have, we will be able to say that we have done the right thing when future inquiries take place. I am sure that when those inquiries are conducted, people will reflect and fingers will be pointed. It is important to learn lessons and continue to improve services.
	Of fundamental significance are Lord Laming's comments on organisational failings, principally in communication between people with responsibility for Victoria Climbié. In paragraph 1.21 on page 4 of the report, he said:
	"Having considered the response to Victoria from each of the agencies, I am forced to conclude that the principal failure to protect her was the result of widespread organisational malaise."
	Like the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough,I welcome the fact that the Opposition have chosen to hold a debate on an extremely significant issue for vulnerable children. Children should always be at the top of the political agenda if we are to learn lessons and shape services appropriately so that we can make sure that children do not die in the circumstances in which Victoria Climbié died, when there was organisational malaise and dysfunction.
	As has been said, there is a general consensus about child care legislation. Having worked in child protection for 10 years, I find it satisfying to have been involved in the passage of legislation over the past few years, including the Children (Leaving Care) Act 2000 and, particularly, the Adoption and Children Act 2002. The hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) served with me on the Special Standing Committee that considered that measure, and it was stimulating to hear the evidence of 29 agencies, which helped us to formulate a good Bill. There were controversial provisions, not least adoption by unmarried couples, an important issue about which we had a vigorous and passionate debate, but the measure is a good one. We hope that many of the 54,000 children who are in foster and residential homes can find permanent, loving families, and we should all strive for that goal. That is what vulnerable children want us to talk about, and that is what we should endeavour to pursue in the House of Commons.
	There are, however, always lessons to be learned. The Government have been criticised for the delay in the publication of the Green Paper, but I hope that the reason for that delay is their wish to get it right. Something to emerge from all the inquiries is the need to get things right, and taking time over the Green Paper is important, as it will include far-reaching organisational changes. We hope that we can put our hand on our heart and say that it provides the necessary structures so that we will not have in future to read comments like those made by Lord Laming.
	It is vital that proper procedures be in place for people at the coal face and in supervisory positions to follow. We can provide the framework, but the solutions must be delivered at the local level. We must do everything that we possibly can to ensure that that process is inspected rigorously to ensure that lines of communications are clear to all the agencies and individuals involved in working with children.
	We should not lose sight of the fact that the front-line job of child protection is not easy. I can think of mistakes that I made as a social worker and of the consequences for the children involved. Were they my fault or the fault of someone supervising me? Yes, they probably were. However, serious pressures and strains are placed on social workers who deal with very complex cases involving very complex families. I remember a situation that arose when I was 23 and a newly qualified child protection social worker. One cold, damp night, I had to visit a family where the stepfather was a huge man who was extremely aggressive and always chose to speak to me at great volume about an inch away from my nose. I went to the tower block where they lived and rang the doorbell of their flat. As I did so, two thoughts went through my mind: "I hope they're not in", because I knew what I would have to endure from that individual; and, "I hope they are in, so I can see that the child is still safe." On Fridays, Saturdays and Sundays one worries oneself sick—I remember those sleepless nights. That was not the most extreme of cases, but it is a common experience that social workers face every day of the week. It is important to remember that as we discuss this sensitive issue.
	The Government can stand on a proud record in terms of the legislation that they have introduced. I well remember the passage of the Children (Leaving Care) Act 2000, because my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson) and I—the old former corduroy wearers—served on that Committee. It raised the age of leaving care to 21, or 24 for youngsters who stay in education and training, which took a lot of persuasion from many hon. Members and care organisations. It sent an important message, especially in light of the fact that 75 per cent. of young people leave care without educational qualifications—I mean, no qualifications at level 1, not grade A to C GCSEs. It is appalling that education has failed so many children in care.
	I remember taking part in meetings with children who were being excluded from school. Such a child might have had a whole series of foster carers and schools, and was being excluded again. What would the prognosis be in those cases? The most important thing that has changed since I sat in those meetings is that the issue has been given a much higher priority. We now have not only the quality protects programme, but the code of admissions for oversubscribed, popular schools, the main criterion of which is that children in public care should go to the very best schools—the popular schools—not those that have huge numbers of surplus places for the reasons that we all know about. That is important.
	I congratulate the BBC. I watched one of its plays recently and thought that the portrayal was realistic. I was worried that it would be filled with doom and gloom. That is obviously the experience of some, but not all young people. It is important to remember that. When those young people are achieving and feeling positive about their lives, they do not want to be associated simply with being a child in care and the 75 per cent. statistic. We must bear it in mind that many achieve much, through the work and efforts of social workers, teachers and foster carers, but mostly through their own efforts.
	The Government have made considerable advances through legislation and they have changed the atmosphere. However, we are considering vulnerable children, and I welcome the choice of debate by the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham. I am sure that that also applies to many vulnerable children and those working in the field.

Charles Hendry: Given the amount of time remaining, I shall curtail my remarks to ensure that colleagues have a chance to speak.
	There can be no greater indictment of any Government than failing vulnerable young people who are entrusted to their care, and are taken into care, which is when they most need support. That is a criticism not of the Government but of the care system, and it stretches back many years. I acknowledge the comment of the hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson) that many people come out well from care, but the examples that my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) and the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis) presented so clearly show that far too many people are left behind and suffer badly from being in care.
	For some young people, life is even worse and they cannot cope with their problems. I therefore want to speak about children and young people who commit suicide. It is one of the most frightening issues that the Government and the country face. In 2002, some 886 children and young people committed suicide. They were overwhelmingly young men; three quarters were male. Suicide accounts for 16 per cent. of deaths of males aged 15 to 19, and 23 per cent. of deaths of those aged between 20 and 24. It is the biggest single cause of death for young people in this country. We need to establish a system to ensure that we do everything possible to prevent such suicides.
	There is an additional problem of self-harm. It is frightening that 20,000 young people engage every year in deliberate, serious self-harm. That should cause us terrible anxiety.
	Sixty-nine per cent. of suicidal children have suffered violence from an adult and 60 per cent. perceived the seeking of help from parents, teachers or anyone else as a sign of weakness. Nearly 90 per cent. of suicidal young people experienced bullying at school and three quarters suffered bullying outside. The figures for homophobic bullying are even worse. One third of young gay men have considered taking their lives.
	Voluntary organisations such as the BE-Foundation, do marvellous work but receive no funding through the Government suicide prevention strategy. I hope that the Government can ensure that those organisations, which work with some of the most vulnerable children in our society, can be helped and supported.
	Voluntary organisations also do fantastic work. The system has not crumbled further partly because of such national and local work. Let me draw attention to one organisation, Kids Company, which is based not far from here. The Minister kindly attended a reception that it held here recently. Day after day, it works with hundreds of young vulnerable people in Lambeth. It gives them a safe place to go where they can do their homework and get a proper meal, which they often do not get at home. It provides care and support for those whose parents cannot do that because either they are not around or there is abuse, drugs or other issues.
	National organisations, such as Weston Spirit, the NSPCC, Barnado's and the Children's Society, also do wonderful work. If the Minister has not already done so, I urge her to read the Prince's Trust report "Reaching the Hardest to Reach", which provides remarkable case studies of young people who have been helped in the voluntary sector. However, those organisations face problems. First, they are starved of funds. Too often, they feel that they are not in partnership with Connexions, but in competition with it. We need to find a more structured way of getting money through to those organisations. Secondly, there must be a simplified way for them to apply for funding. At the moment, the forms are far too complicated and put off many organisations. They find that they are up against professional form fillers and application makers, which means that they do not end up getting the grants.
	Thirdly, the funding system needs to give greater recognition to the core costs that the organisations incur. They cannot for ever be running projects if they do not have the core services to enable them to operate those projects. Finally, we need to move away from the obsession with new projects. At the moment the system is so crazy and barmy that, if an organisation has a project that has worked successfully for three years and could carry on doing marvellous work, it has to reinvent it because money is available only for new projects. There has to be a better way of funding these organisations.
	I do not think that the Minister is the right person to be doing that job, because her track record in Islington precludes her doing it properly. I say that with some sadness, but I feel that it was shown by her speech, which was one of the most offensive, unpleasant and negative that I have ever heard in the House. It contrasted sharply with that of the hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Jonathan Shaw), which was extraordinarily mature and dignified. I hope that she will carefully consider what lessons can be learned on this matter. If she can provide a care system that does not let young people down and does not lead to far too many of them ending up homeless, on the streets or in prison, and if she can provide a system that works genuinely in partnership with the voluntary sector rather than making that sector too often feel excluded, then perhaps—just perhaps—she will justify the trust that the Prime Minister has put in her, in giving her responsibility for the hopes of young children across this country.

Hilton Dawson: I shall be very brief, and try to keep my speech to four minutes to allow Opposition Members to contribute.
	I do not know what that last comment was about, but it gives me great pleasure to follow the speech of my right hon. Friend the Minister. It reminds me of why I am so pleased to be leaving the House at the next election: I shall take, I hope, a very active part in the transformation of children's services that will develop from this Government's legislation and policy.
	I am sorry that the debate opened, and to some extent continued, with glib negativity from the Opposition. These are incredibly important issues, and the Government are addressing them fundamentally and significantly. Members on both sides have mentioned the future of the national service framework for children, and I fully agree that that is extremely important. I have met Professor Aynsley Green on several occasions, and I have great respect for his work. In the massive changes that are taking place in government and across Departments, I desperately hope that that work, far from being lost, will be brought back into the mainstream of integrated developments.
	At the moment, we have an Opposition who are, quite honestly, unable to oppose. They tell us that they welcome the prospect of a children's commissioner, but they have done absolutely nothing to bring that about. They have done nothing on serious issues relating to asylum, nothing on the fact that one or two children in this country die at the hands of parents or care givers, and nothing to deal with the fact that children in this country have less protection under the law than adults do from assault. The Conservative home affairs spokesman speaks of the virtues of parenting time, but says nothing about the 25 children in this country murdered during contact visits in recent years. The Conservatives approve of custody, so they have nothing to say about the plight of young people in our prisons.
	I have great confidence in the Government, and I am confident that they will address those extremely important issues in the near future, in the way that they have addressed the issue of the children's commissioner. I criticise the Government a lot, but I think that they are doing extremely well. In fact, they are doing far better than I would have believed possible when I came to the House in 1997. They are dealing with poverty, bringing in fine legislation and making good investments. They have introduced proper registration and greatly improved training courses for social workers. They have increased participation and we now have the prospect of a children's commissioner in England, just as we already have in Northern Ireland, Wales and Scotland. I salute the efforts that the Government have made, and I urge them on to improve even more.

David Amess: Looking after vulnerable children is certainly a very serious matter, and Southend council takes it very seriously. However, as the Minister will hear when she meets a delegation from the local authority on 1 April, because of the financial settlement, it is going to be very difficult to meet her aspirations, which are also the aspirations that Southend councillors hold.
	The Health Committee took evidence from Lord Laming on 27 March 2003. It was an excellent session, and the whole Committee was shocked by the evidence that we were given. Peter Beresford said of Victoria Climbié:
	"Her death has become one of those major modern occasions where there seems to have been a collective sense of empathy for a stranger's fate. She has become an embodiment of the betrayal, vulnerability and public abandonment of children. The inquiry must mark the end of child protection policy built on a hopeless process of child care tragedy, scandal, inquiry, findings, brief media interest and ad hoc political response. There is now a rare chance to take stock and rebuild."
	The Committee heard that there had been:
	"Failure of communication between different staff and agencies.
	Inexperience and lack of skill of individual social workers.
	Failure to follow established procedures.
	Inadequate resources to meet demands."
	Lord Laming said that what happened to Victoria, and her ultimate death, had resulted from an inexcusable
	"gross failure of the system."
	His report expressed amazement that nobody in the agencies
	"had the presence of mind to follow what are relatively straightforward procedures on how to respond to a child about whom there is concern of deliberate harm."
	The Select Committee shared Lord Laming's amazement.
	On average, 80 children die every year as a result of abuse. To date, there have been 70 public inquiries into such cases since 1945. I gave some examples in the Select Committee:
	"We have Dennis O'Neil in 1945, Maria Colwell in 1973, Jasmine Beckford in 1984, Tyra Henry in 1984, Kimberley Carlile in 1986, Doreen Mason in 1987, Leanne White in 1992, Rickie Neave in 1994, Chelsea Brown in 1999, Victoria Climbié in 2000, Lauren Wright in 2000, Ainlee Walker in 2002."
	I asked Lord Laming whether he was optimistic that, as a result of his inquiry, there would never have to be such inquiries in future into the abuse of our vulnerable children. He very much hoped that the Government would act on his recommendations.
	I shall end with some observations about Southend borough council. Its leader, Councillor Howard Briggs, has expressed concern on behalf of the local authority about the proposed amalgamation resulting in a children's department. He believes that it will be an administrative nightmare both for officers and for members of the local authority. He wondered whether the Government were aware that, at the moment, it is very difficult to recruit people in this field because of the blight. I must say to the Minister, who is to receive the delegation on 1 April, that when Southend council got the local government settlement, it could not believe it. In the formula spending share, the average increase for England to be spent on children's social services was 4.9 per cent., but for Southend, it was only 2.4 per cent.
	The number of children in the care of our council has increased from 265 to 293—an 11 per cent. rise. Younger adults, who need considerably more support in social care, gained a 4.1 per cent. increase nationally, but in Southend they got only 1.4 per cent.
	A similar authority—Hammersmith and Fulham—has 30,000 children, while Southend has 35,000, so it is very unfair that Hammersmith and Fulham gets £33 million while Southend gets £30 million. Unfortunately, we have heard from the Minister for Children and from this rotten Government that it is all done on party political grounds—Southend has two Conservative Members of Parliament—which is an absolute disgrace for our vulnerable children in Southend.

Andrew Lansley: I am glad to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess) who continues to advocate the interests of children—not least through his membership of the Health Committee—and who does so very well in relation to the interests of children in Southend, as evidenced by his remarks.
	My hon. Friend and my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton), who opened the debate, reminded us of the circumstances in which Victoria Climbié was treated and died. Indeed, the hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Jonathan Shaw) reminded us of the true horror of those circumstances. My hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West referred to the fact that if agencies had done their job and done many of the things that constitute good practice—in fact, not even good practice but basic practice—circumstances might have been different. As the Minister said, however, many agencies that encountered the family did not necessarily speak to Victoria. It is in that context that we have returned to the subject.
	As my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham made clear, we initiated debates in our own time last year and we have also used the medium of Back-Bench debates. We have initiated this debate and we will continue to do that, because of the centrality of Parliament's responsibility to ensure that the many resources and the obligations that we place on agencies across the country are being properly discharged.
	That returns us to the point made by my hon. Friend in his opening speech: it is not good enough simply to have checklists and guidance. There are organisations—not just central Government—that issue internal guidance and, in theory, require people to behave responsibly. That is not enough. We must ensure that people are behaving responsibly. There are people in the social services system who find it tough. Following the publication of Herbert Laming's report, Cambridgeshire social services has given a great deal of time and attention to the improvement of children's social services in recent years, not least in the wake of the tragic Rikki Neave case.
	Of course, social services said, "We've gone through a major audit to show ourselves that we are meeting basic practices." "Irritation" is too strong a word, but there was sometimes resentment at resources having to be consumed again by social services doing what they believed they were doing properly. None the less, they accepted that, and people have to accept it time and again. The Government issuing checklists and guidance is not the end of the story—nor did Herbert Laming ever intend it to be. That is why he said that such things could be done within three months. The point is that we have to know that the report is being followed up. That is the purpose of our debate.

Roger Casale: I welcome the cross-party spirit of the debate, but surely the hon. Gentleman recognises that Government intervention— [Interruption.] At least there was a consensus when the debate started. Surely he recognises the fact that Government intervention can make and is making a difference. That is certainly the case in my local authority area, where children's social services were threatened with special measures. Government support and Government intervention, as well as strong local leadership, have helped to turn things round. We should recognise and celebrate examples of such positive intervention where we find them and seek to build on that best practice. Surely the hon. Gentleman recognises that such intervention is succeeding.

Andrew Lansley: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who is clearly talking about his constituency's set of circumstances. Of course, intervention can be necessary, and resources are necessary, but resources are not sufficient. What Laming also made perfectly clear is that in the central Government context within which resources were being determined, many local authorities were spending over the standard spending assessment, while Ealing, Haringey and Brent were not. They were making their own choices, and, to an extent, they were making the wrong choices. It is not just the central Government context for resources that is relevant but the conduct inside local government.
	I have only a few minutes left, and I want to be clear about some of the issues that have arisen from the debate. Unfortunately, because of time, there have been too few contributions to the debate, and I wish we could have had more. I know that other Conservative Members would have spoken had we had longer. The hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis) did, however, contribute, making a point about the detention of refugee children on which no one else really touched. There is a problem. Oakington immigration reception centre, which is situated in my constituency, has children accommodated in it, and it is perfectly proper that they should be accommodated there. Legally, however, those children are accommodated in the detention state. It is therefore not simply a case of removing that from the legislation but of checking the circumstances. Alternatively, legislation could be introduced that is designed to make it clear that Oakington is an immigration reception centre rather than a detention centre, which has not happened.
	The hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough also made a point about delays in the national service framework. I was not aware that the Minister referred to the national service framework for children, because she is in the Department for Education and Skills, and apparently the Under-Secretary of State for Health is going to talk about the national service framework. My hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) and I have a more joined-up approach to these matters, as do the Liberal Democrats, clearly, as there are not enough of them to be disjointed. Although we have had the acute hospital services segment of the national service framework, more is to come, and it is much delayed compared with what we had hoped for. There is everything to be said for some of these issues being brought together at the same time. As we are creating a legislative framework and putting in place children's trusts, clearly, we must know what sort of standards we are aiming to meet, because structure follows function. We therefore need to know what functions are to be met in local authorities to be sure that local authorities are putting in place the right kind of children's trusts.
	The Minister said, and reiterated in an intervention, that there was somehow no planning blight—local authorities and the Government have been working in a seamless fashion towards the introduction and presentation of the Bill being introduced to the House of Lords today. Well, local authorities have been working hard to persuade against what the Minister originally intended to do. It is simply not true, however, that there are not local authorities which for a considerable period—more than a year—have been having to decide whether to do what they think is right in terms of integrating services in their area while trusting that they will not be told to put a one-size-fits-all solution in its place and pick it all apart or whether to wait. Some have been waiting, so there has been planning blight in some respects, and it would be proper for the Minister to accept that.
	In relation to the children's fund, I am astonished that the Minister can admit in the privacy of Westminster Hall that the Government got it all wrong but can come to the Chamber and pretend that it was a triumph and that they put in extra money. They put in extra money because the Department—of course, as the Minister explained in Westminster Hall, the mistakes were made by the Department, not by Ministers—permitted "over-programming" of expenditure, which is the polite word used in the Department, and the carrying forward of underspends. The net effect is over-commitment, so she is now having to cut in the first instance and then put in extra money. The Minister pretends that the money is not going to be reduced, but it is £160 million in 2003–04 and £110 million in 2004–05. It is perfectly clear from evidence that is now emerging that the Department is including in the amount for 2004–05 money originally promised for projects that will now not be provided. The Minister who is to reply certainly ought to be able to reply to that.
	The point that we have made time and again is that the necessity of implementing Herbert Laming's report, as well as information, referral and tracking pilots and many other things, requires action. Lord Laming had a timetable for action, which needed not just a checklist and the issuing of guidance but legislation, enforcement and audit to follow that up. We will press the Government to deliver those until the happier day when we can take responsibility for such matters, and deliver the services that children need and deserve.

Stephen Ladyman: I shall begin at the end. I agreed with one or two things in that speech, but I disagreed with one or two others. For instance, the suggestion that the Liberal Democrats were "joined up" simply because there were so few of them was a mistake: it takes only one Liberal Democrat to be disjointed, as the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis) has demonstrated on many occasions.
	I did agree with one thing that the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) said, or at least implied—that three elements are involved in protecting vulnerable children: resources, powers and best practice. We must ensure that all three work together. No doubt we shall deal with the powers in many debates in the coming months following tomorrow's publication of the Children's Bill. We have already begun to identify best practice, and to roll it out around the country.
	The hon. Gentleman was also right to say that issuing checklists was not the end of the story. We never suggested that it was. That is why we have worked so hard: that is why we have produced a Green Paper and a Bill; that is why we have had a thorough consultation; and that is why we are going to publish a document on the way forward. We realise that getting all those three elements right is the way to improve services, and to secure the level of protection that we seek.
	The hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess) mentioned funding, as did the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton). Conservative Members really should not debate the funding of children's services with us, because they start from a weak position. It is all very well for them to come up with sophistry in their recently published document suggesting that under a future Tory Government education, for funding purposes, will somehow apply to children's social services. That is not what the shadow Chancellor said by any manner of means. What he said would, in fact, lead to a cut of some £2.5 billion in local government funding, the brunt of which would fall on children's social services. If that is not the case, I look forward to the next time we debate older people's services, because it will have to fall on those.
	Let us compare the records of the two parties. Personal social services funding has increased by 30 per cent. in real terms since 1997; in the last period of Tory Government, it increased by 0.1 per cent. But the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough should not be too smug. His party has not committed a single extra penny to children's social services. Indeed, its leader has specifically excluded any such increase, although he has managed to find £1.8 billion for free personal services for pensioners with savings. The Liberal Democrats and the Conservatives entered into a battle of wits to see who could portray their party as the one that will support children, but it was a battle of wits fought by unarmed opponents.

Eleanor Laing: Will the Minister give way?

Stephen Ladyman: No, I am afraid that I have little time.
	The hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough asked some specific questions, one of which concerned the application of the Children Act 1989 in prisons. A recent judgment found that the Act did apply within the constraints of imprisonment. My right hon. Friend the Minister for Children is considering that judgment, and whether we require any further guidance in order to extend the Act's provisions to prisons. It may well be that sufficient provisions are already in place.
	The hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough also discussed Victoria Climbié and suggested that, in essence, she was a looked-after child. She was never a looked-after child. Technically, she was being privately fostered: that is, she was in the care of someone who was not a close family member, for more than the period defined in law; but that was not known at the time because Marie Therese Kouao pretended to be her mother. However, I can assure the hon. Gentleman that notwithstanding that, my right hon. Friend the Minister for Children is already committed to tightening private fostering, and to ensuring that there are much firmer controls.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Jonathan Shaw) is a fellow Kent Member, and I am proud to call him that after his excellent contribution. What he said was very important in terms of Laming and the identification of organisational malaise; indeed, that is exactly the issue that we are trying to address. He described the mistakes that he made as a social worker, but as I frequently tell social workers, although we often concentrate on their mistakes, it would surely be fairer now and again to concentrate on the tens of thousands of children and vulnerable people whom they keep out of harm's way. Despite his acknowledging that he occasionally made mistakes, I am sure that he made many more good decisions.
	The hon. Member for Wealden (Charles Hendry) introduced the subject of suicide to the debate, about which I entirely agree with him. Suicide is now the leading killer of young people, and we must do something about it. Bullying is a very important issue, and one of the Ministers in the Department for Education and Skills has already put together a multi-million pound strategy, which includes a charter for action on bullying and work across the voluntary and public sectors, to really do something about bullying. Although the hon. Gentleman began very fairly, he lapsed into a disgraceful attack on my right hon. Friend the Minister for Children. Let me tell him that she is the most dedicated person whom I have met in government, and she is determined to put things right for vulnerable children and to make sure that protection is in place for them. It is a continuing disgrace that the Conservatives keep making these unfounded attacks, in the face of her proven record.

Eleanor Laing: rose—

Stephen Ladyman: My hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson) told us that he is leaving the House to return to social work, and I congratulate him on his commitment to such work. In my campaigns as the Minister with responsibility for a large part of the social work industry, I have done a great deal to try to encourage people to return it. I never intended for that to apply to him; none the less, I welcome his returning to social work.

Andrew Lansley: Will the Minister give way?

Stephen Ladyman: I am sorry but I do not have time. I need to deal with the national service framework for children, which is a very important part of our philosophy. Those Opposition Members who tried to imply today that we have forgotten about that framework—and that the director of services who provides the official lead, Professor Al Aynsley-Green, has been dilatory—were making disgraceful comments. We have worked very hard on that framework, and we have already published a document on hospital standards and on the emerging findings of that framework. We will publish the remaining findings later this year.

Patrick McLoughlin: rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.
	Question, That the Question be now put, put and agreed to.

Question put accordingly, That the original words stand part of the Question:—
	The House divided: Ayes 189, Noes 329.

Question accordingly negatived.
	Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 31 (Questions on amendments):—
	The House divided: Ayes 364, Noes 141.

Question accordingly agreed to.
	Mr Speaker forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.
	Resolved,
	That this House welcomes the fact that this Government acknowledged the importance of children's issues by appointing the first ever Minister with responsibility for children and young people; congratulates the Government's commitment to Lord Laming's report on safeguarding children, shown in the Green Paper Every Child Matters, and its determination to turn words into action by publishing the Children's Bill in the other place today; acknowledges that the £885 million Quality Protects Programme is already improving the life chances of vulnerable children; commends the Government for the 8.7% increase in funding for children's social services in the next financial year; and is alarmed by the Opposition's proposals to freeze spending on children's services.

HIGHER EDUCATION (PROGRAMME) (NO. 3)

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Orders [28 June 2001 and 6 November 2003],
	That in accordance with the Resolution of the Standing Committee of 2nd March 2004, the Programme Order of 27th January in relation to the Higher Education Bill shall be further amended by the substitution in paragraph 2 (time for conclusion of proceedings in Standing Committee) for the words 'Thursday 4th March' of the words 'Tuesday 9th March'.—[Ms Bridget Prentice.]
	The House divided: Ayes 347, Noes 119.

Question accordingly agreed to.
	Resolved,
	That in accordance with the Resolution of the Standing Committee of 2nd March 2004, the Programme Order of 27th January in relation to the Higher Education Bill shall be further amended by the substitution in paragraph 2 (time for conclusion of proceedings in Standing Committee) for the words 'Thursday 4th March' of the words 'Tuesday 9th March'.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
	That, at the sitting on Tuesday 9th March, paragraph (2) of Standing Order No. 31 (Questions on amendments) shall apply to the proceedings on any Motions in the name of Mr Alex Salmond or Mr Elfyn Llwyd as if the day were an Opposition Day; and proceedings on such Motions may continue, though opposed, for six hours after the first of them has been entered upon, or until Seven o'clock, whichever is the later.—[Ms Bridget Prentice.]

Rail Services (Worcestershire)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Ms Bridget Prentice.]

Michael Spicer: One of the more perverse myths spread about by the Labour party is the notion that the failings of the railway services in Worcestershire and elsewhere are the result of the privatisation of the railways in 1994. The reverse is closer to the truth. Before privatisation, the railways were in an apparently terminal decline: all the talk was of cuts and closures of railway lines. In particular, an axe hung permanently over the line that links Worcestershire with London Paddington, often known as the Cotswold line, which passes through the constituencies of my hon. Friends the Members for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff) and for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown), both of whom I am delighted to see here tonight. The word at the time was that the line was kept open only because four Transport Ministers and former Transport Ministers used it. If so, that fragile safety net comprised Lord Walker, predecessor of my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire in his previous constituency; Nicholas Ridley, then the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury; Lord Caithness, who lived somewhere in the Cotswolds; and your humble servant, who at that time represented South Worcestershire in Parliament. However fanciful that theory may appear, the state-run railways clearly turned passengers off and, under the doubly malign grip of Whitehall bureaucracy and powerful trade unions, were heading for oblivion.
	Privatisation brought about two major changes. First, there was a massive programme of investment in the industry, and £24 billion has been made available since 1994, much of which has come from resources not provided by the taxpayer. Secondly, foundations were laid for a serious attempt to attract passengers back to the railways, beginning with a new and, at the time, unfamiliar politeness on the part of ticket collectors. Passengers started to be treated as desirable customers rather than as necessary appendages of the service. Above all, in Worcestershire, there was a marked increase in the frequency of services, particularly on inter-city routes.
	The results were highly successful in attracting passengers. Since privatisation, passenger journeys on the service operated by Central trains between Birmingham and Hereford have risen by 25 per cent., and the rise on the service operated by the Cotswold line is an astonishing 51 per cent. That significant increase in passenger demand has, however, been achieved at a price. Previously, the problem was lack of customers, leading to cutbacks in services, which were a further deterrent against usage, but now the growing problem is excessive demand, for which the available capacity of rolling stock and track is insufficient. Trains are overcrowded, especially at peak times, and the track is congested and arguably overused. Congestion blackspots that affect Worcestershire are particularly acute around Birmingham. All of that has led to delays, cancellations and disruption for many of my constituents and, I am sure, those of my hon. Friends. Last week, 150 people turned out to voice their concerns about rail services in a public meeting in Malvern organised by the Malvern Gazette. A dramatic fact emerged at that meeting: a poll of 100 commuters on a route between Worcester and Hereford showed that four out of 10 journeys were more than half an hour late. If I need to make a morning meeting in London, I travel the day before, even though the morning timetable promises to get me there on time. As for timetables, no one is fooled by the proposal to lengthen journey times to meet punctuality targets.
	The Government's response, perhaps predictably, is to blame the private operators, turn back the clock and initiate a new process of centralisation which, in some respects, amounts to renationalisation. The Strategic Rail Authority has therefore been created, with powers that go well beyond those of a regulator. All investment decisions and every improvement to the system has to be approved, if not initiated from the centre, by the SRA. We now have the worst of all worlds: final decisions are taken remotely behind closed doors and are subject to complex bureaucratic conditions. We really have returned to the worst characteristics of a nationalised system.
	The potential for delay, muddle and bureaucratic cost is self-evident. Let us consider a proposal—in fact, such a scheme is in the pipeline—to improve substantially the facilities offered by Worcester Shrub Hill station by providing a parkway. Three distinct organisations would be directly involved in such a decision. The SRA would effectively decide on the investment, which would be owned by Network Rail and operated by the franchised train operator—in this case, Central trains. The mind boggles at the prospective paper pushing between those three entities before a final decision is taken at the centre.
	The complexity and remoteness of the new command structure has particularly serious implications for the major investment decisions that are now badly needed to solve Worcestershire's railway problems, the most important of which is the need to redual track where single lining was imposed under a nationalised system. The parts that most affect my constituents are the Colwall tunnel, the line between Ledbury and Hereford, where Central trains has a franchise running between Birmingham, Worcester, Malvern and Hereford, and, on the Hereford-to-London route, the line between Evesham and Moreton-in-Marsh.
	The latter is a particularly serious deficiency. The fact that trains constantly have to wait at Evesham, in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire, and at Moreton-in-Marsh, in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold, in order for the line to be free is one of the major reasons for the lateness of the service between Worcestershire and London when it occurs. The Minister seemed to acknowledge the importance of dualling in a comment that he made in the House on 6 January this year. It is essential to the smooth running of the Cotswold line that dualling of the Evesham and Moreton-in-Marsh section be undertaken as a matter of urgency. Similarly, at the public meeting organised by the Malvern Gazette, the importance of dualling the stretch of line between Ledbury and Hereford and the Colwall tunnel was acknowledged by passengers and by the operating companies. The potential for buck-passing between Network Rail, the Strategic Rail Authority and the Government is very clear, as is the centralised nature of the decision-making process.
	It is not only investment decisions that are badly affected by the new management system: there is also the problem of central interference with the daily operations of the train companies. A good recent example relates to the proposed scheduling of trains on the Cotswold line following First Great Western's winning of the new franchise on the line. The train operator originally proposed a schedule of through services of trains running direct to London. That schedule would have equalled, if not improved on, existing frequencies, which have been a major factor in drawing customers back to the line. Following interference from the Strategic Rail Authority, the proposal now seems to be to terminate more trains at Oxford, which will be highly disruptive to passengers travelling from Worcestershire or Gloucestershire up to London. That major deficiency was caused not by the train operators, but entirely by the Strategic Rail Authority's intervening on their proposals and making them worse—not, I suspect, on grounds of cost savings, but simply interfering for the sake of it.

Peter Luff: Does my hon. Friend wish to emphasise to the Minister the very serious consequences that changing at Oxford can have for overall usage of the line? As we all know, trains cannot wait at Oxford to make connections because of the single-line sections between Oxford and Worcester. The consequence will be that people miss trains and connections and stop using the Cotswold line.

Michael Spicer: My hon. Friend is right. I hope that the Minister will be able to have a word in somebody's ear. Part of the problem is that we do not know whose ear it should be. We do know, however, that the Strategic Rail Authority blocked the proposal and that the new franchise will be based on a worse proposal. I could not agree more with my hon. Friend about the great difficulty caused by the infrequency of trains out of Oxford—certainly, they do not run to London as frequently as they would on a through-train basis.
	There is a reverse gear feeling about this problem, as though the former nationalised service were operating again. It would be highly regrettable if it were to become the start of a new policy of cutting back on services. That is exactly what has been implied: it is clear from the new timetable that the frequency of services is to be cut. That is particularly likely if the faults on the new Adelante trains that the National Audit Office recently identified persist.
	Worcestershire rail services do not need the imposition of the centralised might of the Strategic Rail Authority; they need the transparency and accountability to passengers that goes with a decentralised, locally accountable, well-motivated system. If we made one mistake in government when we privatised the railway industry, it is probably that we did not break up the network enough. A great debate could be had about that, but in my view we should have gone further to provide for local franchises. It is a tragedy that the Government are moving in precisely the opposite direction. If the trend towards interference from the centre persists, it will mean a less effective railway system for Worcestershire and elsewhere.
	Worcestershire requires a modern, reliable, comfortable and, above all, frequent commuter and inter-city rail service. The last thing that passengers need is a return to the dark ages of a nationalised, centrally controlled, unresponsive, run-down railway system that lacks proper investment. It would mean that our inadequate roads would become even more clogged up.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Does my hon. Friend agree that he, my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff) and I represent highly rural constituencies and that, without a satisfactory railway system, people will not stop making journeys, but will simply make them on the roads, which are becoming ever more congested? That is environmentally unsustainable.

Michael Spicer: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I would add to his comments only my last point. Some people do not want to, or cannot, use a car, and for various reasons, some do not want to drive to work. They, especially those in rural areas, face the prospect of being even more stranded. I look forward to the Minister's response.

Peter Luff: I have approximately two minutes before the Minister might be expected to reply. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for West Worcestershire (Sir Michael Spicer) on a fine speech on a subject that is important to all our constituents in Gloucestershire and Worcestershire. I agree with everything that he said about the Cotswold line. I want to comment briefly on issues that affect his constituency, mine and Birmingham.
	I hope that the Minister might persuade Network Rail to give higher priority to three different infrastructure investments, each of them modest, which make an enormous difference to the genuine suffering of my constituents who use the line. The first investment is in remodelling track between Worcester Foregate Street and Worcester Shrub Hill station. That would greatly enhance the flexibility of the train operators, especially Central trains. The second is the introduction of an additional signalling section between Worcester and Droitwich, which would greatly increase capacity on the line. The third is increasing the length of Bromsgrove station to enable it to take four-car trains. One of the major problems for services between Malvern, Worcester, Droitwich and Birmingham is the Health and Safety Executive rule for four-car trains. They cannot stop at Bromsgrove so they cannot run on the line. One fast train is non-stop at Bromsgrove.
	Lengthening Bromsgrove station, putting in an extra section and remodelling the junction between Foregate Street and Shrub Hill would transform capacity and make a big difference to reliability. It would not cost much, either. 7.52 pm

Kim Howells: I add my congratulations to the hon. Member for West Worcestershire (Sir Michael Spicer) on securing the debate and providing an opportunity for the House to discuss the future of rail services in Worcestershire.
	Before I respond to the points that the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff) made, it might be helpful if I provided information about the performance of the train operators who predominantly serve Worcestershire. I should like the hon. Member for West Worcestershire to know that there will be no return to a nationalised rail industry. He is doing what he is supposed to do as an Opposition Member—opposing the Government. However, I was sorry that he did not admit that we are spending a lot of money on the railways. That is happening rather too late because, for 30 years, very little money was spent on them.
	The hon. Gentleman was right to say that privatisation has levered out money that was not previously available for the railways. That is welcome. A symptom of that, which he described, is the 50 per cent. increase in patronage on the Cotswold line. Somebody is doing something right, and we should be readier to pay tribute to people who operate the railways, from those who welcome and look after passengers to the Strategic Rail Authority, Network Rail and the Office of the Rail Regulator.
	The system is not easy but complicated, and I am glad that the hon. Gentleman raised the matter because it gives me an opportunity to say that the rail review that we are currently conducting does not seek greater centralisation. I have a great deal of sympathy with his last point, when he said that the privatisation that happened nine years ago was not the right sort of privatisation and that perhaps there should have been a greater range of models for running railways in different parts of the country. I have no doubt that they could have been run better, and that any model that is top heavy or very prescriptive in the way in which it seeks to serve very different markets in different areas—rural markets and commuter markets, for example—needs to be challenged. We need ideas about how best to run the railways, and that is why we have instituted the review.
	I get the message from the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire. I have read the press release that he put out on 3 February; it is a very detailed assessment of what is required. I take his point about the platform at Bromsgrove. Many platforms around the country need modification; there is no question about that. We could greatly increase the capacity of our railways if we were able to make those modifications.
	I was lucky enough to be in Japan over the past week. I had heard that it had the best railway system in the world, and I wanted to have a look at it. Japan has a population twice the size of ours. We have been celebrating the fact that British railways carried a larger number of people last year than in any year since 1961—1 billion people. In Japan last year, the railways carried 22 billion people, yet the network is not much larger than ours. They have created a signalling system and a system of control and route utilisation that are infinitely better than anything we have. We have a great deal to learn from them.
	I have absolutely no doubt that Worcestershire as a whole would benefit greatly if we could adapt some of that technology, expertise and know-how. Certainly, something as basic as getting platforms the right length so that they can take longer trains is an important issue. I have spoken to Richard Bowker, the chairman of the Strategic Rail Authority, who knows the railways of Worcestershire very well, and he is very keen that we should get on with the work. There is a problem, however, and it relates to the subject of this debate. I would say to the hon. Member for West Worcestershire that I would certainly like to dual a lot more of the single-track lines in the country, but that can happen only at a cost. Dualling is under way at the moment down in Cornwall, and I think that a seven-mile stretch is costing about £14 million. The track was ripped up in the 1980s—quite late, really—and it is now going to be re-dualled. That is a lot of money, yet that is one of the least costly projects that I have seen.
	The SRA can manage a project like that, working with Network Rail, for about £14 million for seven miles. The hon. Gentleman listed a number of stretches that need dualling, and some are at least as long as that. That would involve a lot of money. I am sure that he would clear that with his right hon. Friend the shadow Chancellor, because it would be money worth spending. I cannot, however, give him a promise here and now that we can somehow make that money available from central Government. He is quite right to say that this is a complicated process.
	One of the objectives of the rail review that we have implemented is to ensure that we get more bangs for our buck, so to speak, when we spend money on the railways. This year, we shall spend the best part of £4 billion, which is two to three times as much as was being spent on the railways five or six years ago. That is a lot of money, but a lot of things need doing on the railways. The hon. Gentleman has told us that he cares passionately about his constituents being able to have access to jobs and other markets, and I am sure that he could wish for nothing more important than that, except perhaps a better health service or education service. However, he knows as well as I do that railway systems are very expensive to run. If we can manage better what we already have, that will be a good start. I am not convinced that we do it well enough at the moment, and we must be much more responsive and imaginative in the way in which we engage with the customers that he is talking about.
	I mentioned the huge increase in patronage on the Cotswold line. Somebody must be doing something right there. I am sure that it is not the case that people are simply choosing not to use their cars, because clearly road congestion is rising at the same time. The fact is that people are travelling more and they are looking for opportunities to use public transport where they can.

Michael Spicer: The Minister is making a thoughtful and interesting contribution, and I am grateful to him for it. I once heard him make what to me was an extremely interesting remark. He was on the "Today" programme on Radio 4 to discuss the question of prioritising expenditure, which is what, to some extent, we are talking about. The Minister courageously made a point, which it was difficult for him to make, about gold-plating health and safety expenditure by going over the top and unnecessarily far. Would he care to develop that? I say that in the best possible spirit: it was an extremely courageous thing for a transport Minister to say because it raised the question of prioritising. He is right that the money has to be raised, but there is a circular process. If the money is to be raised, it will be raised partly because the operating company is making a profit and it has to be allowed to work the system properly. There is an upward spiral.

Kim Howells: Yes, indeed. I am happy to repeat that, although I know that the hon. Gentleman will not want me to go on about it because he asked questions about timetabling, among other things. I want to try to answer them. However, I will say that one of the most extraordinary things that I found in Japan is the fact that between the first running of the Bullet train—the Shinkansen—in 1963 and this year, the number of people killed was nil. No one has died on those trains.
	I was fascinated by how the Japanese approach health and safety. They focus very much on reducing risk. We know that, unfortunately, because of the immense complication of how safety works in this country—this is not a fault of individuals who work in these sectors nor often of the systems of the individual agencies—there is gold-plating, and the hon. Gentleman is right to talk about it. There are company standards, group standards and bodies of all kinds out there whose responsibilities sometimes overlap. As a consequence, the costs are very high.
	This is easy for me to say as I am a politician and I can use these glib phrases as easily as anybody else, but we ought to concentrate far more on basic functions involving the protection of passenger welfare and of staff who work on the railways. We could be saving quite a lot of money there, or at least redirect that money to ensure that we have the safest railways in the world.
	The hon. Gentleman mentioned Oxford and having to change trains. Nothing is more irritating for people than having to change after they have had a through service. I want to deal with that in more detail, then I will sit down. I have noted the hon. Gentleman's concerns, and I am aware of the press release issued by the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire expressing his concerns about the effect of the proposed timetable changes on the services along the Cotswold line and along the line that runs to Birmingham. Thames Trains currently provides six weekday services between Great Malvern and London Paddington in each direction, and First Great Western provides three services in each direction. The SRA has agreed to a two-hourly Adelante service from Great Malvern to Paddington, increasing the number of through Great Malvern to Paddington services from the current nine to 12. Eight of those will be formed of InterCity 125 stock, compared with just three at present. In alternate hours, a Turbo service will run from Great Malvern to Oxford for connection into the Adelante services, which is what has been worrying the hon. Gentleman. Adelantes offer more comfort, with five-car trains, against the three-car 166 Turbos. They also offer a lower-density seat formation, and virtually all the Oxford services will be upgraded to 125 mph InterCity stock.
	That represents a significant improvement in the quality of rolling stock and service at certain Cotswold line stations, including Great Malvern, but while the number of services along the route as a whole remains the same, the hon. Gentleman is right that there is a small reduction in through services.
	The higher-speed rolling stock will improve journey times, including on some services where a change at Oxford will be necessary. The proposed timetable is not fixed yet—I have a copy of it here, and the hon. Gentleman is welcome to take a look at it if he wants—but it appears to me, as a fascinated amateur, that it is a better timetable. Obviously, he must make that judgment, as he has constituents to represent. I give him the undertaking, however, that I will ensure that the SRA sees the transcript of this debate so that it knows exactly where the weaknesses are in the links. I know that the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire has already made the SRA very much aware of his worries, because I have read a copy of the letter that he wrote to Mr. Richard Bowker of the SRA. He is an intelligent man and is determined to put the railways right, and he probably knows trouble when he sees it. He will therefore be able to answer those questions for himself.
	I thank the hon. Member for West Worcestershire for raising this matter, and I hope that we can work together to try to improve services for his constituents.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Adjourned accordingly at six minutes past Eight o'clock.

Deferred Division
	 — 
	Prevention and Suppression of Terrorism

That the draft Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 (Continuance in force of sections 21 to 23) Order 2004, which was laid before this House on 20 January, be approved.
	The Sixth Report from the Joint Committee on Human Rights, Session 2003–04, on the Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001: Statutory Review and Continuance of Part 4, HC 381, is relevant.
	The House divided: Ayes 370, Noes 49.

Question accordingly agreed to.